ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sri Lanka

Joan Ruddock: What recent reports he has received on the establishment of high-security zones in Sri Lanka.

Alistair Burt: The number of high-security zones established over recent years has begun to be reduced, but a number still remain, particularly in the north of the country. These zones prevent the return of people to their land. We welcome the reduction in the number of zones, but we are looking for more progress as time goes on.

Joan Ruddock: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Tamils in my constituency are deeply concerned by reports that as many as 60,000 people have been removed from their homes to make way for the military. Does he agree that peace will be possible in Sri Lanka only if the religious, cultural and human rights of Tamils are respected and the “Sinhalisation” of Tamil areas is rejected?

Alistair Burt: I certainly agree with the right hon. Lady about the need to return more people to their land. I was in Jaffna very recently, where I was able to see the damage that had been done over the years of conflict and to speak to some of those who were being resettled. The issue of land rights is very complex, and we have asked the Sri Lankan Government to consider the experience of others as they seek to try to resolve these issues over a lengthy period.

Lee Scott: Will the Minister look into reports of atrocities taking place in the north of Sri Lanka, including intimidation, murder, rape and other such crimes?

Alistair Burt: Yes. While I was there, reference was made to an upsurge in crime in December and January; a number of murders had been committed. We raised that with the authorities. Precisely what had sparked it was unclear, but there was no doubt that the atmosphere had been very tense over that period. It is very important that Jaffna returns to something like what it was, and
	that Tamil people feel part of a renewed Sri Lanka. We look to the Government to make good their promises about reconciliation for the future.

Siobhain McDonagh: The sad experience of everyone from the Tamil community and those supporting them over the past few years has been that the Government of Sri Lanka are slow to act unless some threat is attached to a requirement for better behaviour. Is there anything that the Minister might do in order to put some sanction behind the words in trying to get the proper things done?

Alistair Burt: I do not think that the right approach is necessarily one of threats, but the Sri Lankan Government are aware of our continuing concern about the speed with which the country is returning to the proper spirit of reconciliation set out by the Government and, for example, whether the lessons learned in the reconciliation commission will properly engage those from outside in an independent manner. Until these things are done, the concerns of Tamils everywhere will not necessarily be settled. Both sides need to be engaged and involved in the process of reconciliation, but we ask the Sri Lankan Government to live up to their public commitments.

Simon Hughes: Do British and other diplomats, United Nations officials and international non-governmental organisations have free access across the whole of Sri Lanka, and, if not, what will our Government do to try to make sure that that is possible?

Alistair Burt: The short answer is no, they do not. Where there is not free access to rehabilitation camps, for example, the British Government make it very clear that that must be provided, with proper access for NGOs and for others who wish to see them. Progress has been made in this respect. More NGOs have access than in the past, but it is not complete, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the matter.

UK-Caribbean Relations

David Lammy: What recent assessment he has made of the state of relations between the UK and the countries of the Caribbean; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Browne: The Government are committed to maintaining and furthering the excellent relationship that we have with the Caribbean. I visited Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica in January, and the Secretary of State for International Development recently announced a 50% increase in DFID’s bilateral aid funding for the Caribbean.

David Lammy: I am sorry to drag the Minister back to the UK. He will recognise that there is concern in the Caribbean that Britain is ceding its relationship with the Caribbean to the United States, and that many young people, particularly where there is growing unemployment, are turning to things such as basketball instead of cricket. Will he say more about air passenger duty, which is imposing high fares on travel to the Caribbean?

Jeremy Browne: I had the honour of meeting, among others, Sir Garfield Sobers during my trip. I offer the West Indian cricket team best wishes in the world cup, although I obviously hope that England win. On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, any announcement on tax will be made in the Budget next week.

Eritrea

Chris Heaton-Harris: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Eritrea; and if he will make a statement.

Henry Bellingham: We are concerned about the denial of basic rights to Eritrean people, particularly the severe restrictions on political, religious and media freedoms. We welcome the progress towards a resolution of Eritrea’s border dispute with Djibouti, but are concerned by its support for opposition groups in Somalia, for which the UN Security Council has imposed strong sanctions.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Minister well knows that I have a constituent who has been detained without charge in Eritrea and is currently being denied consular access. His wife is very concerned about his whereabouts. I have been told that nobody has seen him for nearly two and a half months. What more can the Government do to help my constituent and his wife?

Henry Bellingham: I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. By denying consular access to four Britons, Eritrea is in gross breach of a Vienna convention. I have summoned the Eritrean ambassador on two occasions and our ambassador in Asmara has made repeated representations to the Foreign Ministry and the Office of the President. So far, there has been no response to our efforts. The Foreign Secretary has instructed all posts worldwide to raise the issue as a matter of priority. We will continue to press for consular access to the men at the highest level.

John Spellar: I am sure the Minister recognises that stability in Eritrea and across the horn of Africa is vital in the battle against piracy, but there is an immediate crisis. Since the previous Foreign Office questions, a tanker carrying £100 million of oil has been captured by pirates, several seafarers have been murdered, and mother ships are sailing far into the Indian ocean. Last month, The Times reported that the terrorist organisation al-Shabaab has cut a deal with the pirates for a 20% share of future ransoms. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Henry Bellingham: The shadow Minister makes an important point. This is a growing challenge and threat, as is suggested by the facts that he outlines. It is essential that we have tough action at sea, and the UK is leading the international response. We also need a renewed effort to secure detention and prison facilities in neighbouring countries. I therefore urge all countries in the region to play their part in combating this evil.

Terrorist Organisations

Graham Evans: What recent reports he has received on the involvement of the Government of Iran with bodies acting as proxies for terrorist organisations; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: The latest evidence that Iran continues to supply the Taliban with weaponry is at odds with Iran’s claim to the international community and its own people that it supports stability and security in Afghanistan. That behaviour is completely unacceptable. We continue to condemn Iranian support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which pursue an ideology of violence that directly undermines the prospects for peace in the region.

Graham Evans: Iran has been a prolific sponsor of terror in Afghanistan against coalition troops. Last week it was reported that 48 mid-range rockets that were intercepted in Afghanistan had been supplied to the Taliban by Iran. What steps are the Government taking to combat shipments of weapons and funds from Iran to terror hot spots around the world?

William Hague: There was indeed a shipment of 122 mm rockets and a large amount of ammunition. The fact that it was intercepted and seized by NATO in Nimruz shows that effective measures are being taken. Of course, we cannot be sure how effective those measures are. We assess that Iran is the most significant provider of weapons, training and funding to Hezbollah, as well as supporting the Taliban as this case shows. We have made it clear to the authorities in Tehran that this is completely unacceptable. We will continue to push for full implementation of the UN resolutions that call for the disarmament of these armed groups and prohibit weapons transfers.

Louise Ellman: On 10 March, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said:
	“The fake Zionist government is a cancerous tumour”.
	What steps are being taken to deal with Iran’s influence on terrorism in Lebanon and Gaza?

William Hague: I outlined the steps that are being taken in response to the previous question. The hon. Lady draws attention to another outrageous and unacceptable statement by the Iranian leadership, which is part of a long line of such statements about the state of Israel and other nations in the region. We continue to deliver our protests and to take the practical action I have outlined.

Peter Tapsell: In the context of the very important question of Iran, may I tell my right hon. Friend that in my memory, since the days of Ernest Bevin, I have never known a Foreign Secretary surrounded simultaneously by so many difficult problems? I want to tell him how much I admire the coolness and efficiency with which he is dealing with them.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is always respected as one of the wisest Members of the House. The fact that his recollections go back as far as Ernest Bevin is an inspiration to us, and the conclusion he draws is an inspiration to me.

Egypt

Rushanara Ali: What recent reports he has received on the progress of negotiations between the Government and opposition parties in Egypt; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: We welcome the new Prime Minister and his Government in Egypt. Recent Cabinet changes are a promising step towards the reform that many Egyptians have been calling for. We will continue to urge the interim Government, as the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), did during his recent visit, to build trust with opposition groups and involve them in dialogue as the Government develop their reform plans and the timetable for elections.

Rushanara Ali: Following last week’s debate on UN Women, which recognised the importance of women playing a full part in post-conflict political processes, what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that women are fully involved in the post-Mubarak political and constitutional process as Egypt moves towards what we all hope will be free and fair elections?

William Hague: We are looking to assist in Egypt with the development of civil society, political parties and electoral processes, through technical advice and by building links between organisations in Egypt and the UK. That will of course include a great deal of reference to, and experience of, the involvement of women in civil society and politics in this country. That is one way in which we can have a positive influence on Egypt. We cannot dictate how it constructs a democratic political system, but we can be a major influence on it.

Jo Johnson: What is the position of the UK Government on the legitimacy of Saturday’s constitutional referendum, given that many opposition leaders including Mohamed el-Baradei and Amr Moussa have called on their supporters to vote no to changes that they regard as something of a charade?

William Hague: These things are of course to be decided in Egypt itself. There has been a tremendous chain of events, which led to the revolution in Egypt. The clear aspiration of the people of Egypt is to have not only good economic development but an open and democratic political system. That will mean the holding of elections, and in the view of the interim Government it means the holding of the referendum as well. It is not for us to determine the outcome of that referendum or what questions are put in it, but it is for us to urge that it is properly and fairly conducted. We would certainly encourage the Egyptian authorities to allow international observers to observe the referendum and the subsequent elections.

Mark Durkan: In the UK Government’s diplomatic contribution to current considerations in Egypt and to its future governance, will they have regard to the rights and interests of all minorities there, including Christians?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. The hon. Gentleman raises a vital point. It is extremely important that the development of a democracy and of a more open political system is not accompanied by increased discrimination and the harassment of minorities in Egypt. Although we must respect the fact that we will not be able to ordain what happens in an Egyptian democracy, we can be a positive influence on it, and that is one of the factors that we must try to influence.

Middle East

Rachel Reeves: What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s involvement in the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: The United Kingdom will continue to press for progress on the middle east peace process. The situation across the middle east demands that, and I discussed progress with President Abbas last week. We want to see a resumption of negotiations based on clear parameters supported by the international community: 1967 borders with equivalent land swaps, appropriate security arrangements, Jerusalem as the capital of both states and a just solution for refugees.

Rachel Reeves: In February, the Israeli Government removed two checkpoints from the Nablus area. Last week, a man was stopped outside Nablus with a bag of explosives, and this weekend an Israeli family were murdered. Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome the removal of checkpoints but acknowledge the security risks that such decisions entail when abused by those who do not want peace?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely—the hon. Lady is quite right to draw attention to that. Of course, it is good when the security environment improves, but what happened in the Israeli settlement near Nablus at the weekend was absolutely unacceptable. I issued a statement at the time saying:
	“The friends and relatives of the family killed in Itamar have my deepest sympathies. This was an act of incomprehensible cruelty and brutality which I utterly condemn.”

Bob Blackman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the atrocity at Itamar makes it even harder for Prime Minister Netanyahu to advance the middle east peace process with the Palestinians, and that Members on both sides of the House should utterly condemn such atrocities?

William Hague: I will go part of the way with my hon. Friend. We should condemn that atrocity across the House, as I think all parties do, but we must not let any of the recent events in the middle east allow us to draw the conclusion that it has become impossibly harder to pursue the middle east peace process. Indeed, the wider turn of events in the middle east recently, as well as such acts of great barbarity, underline the need to get on with the peace process, and to give even greater urgency to the search for a two-state solution. I hope that that lesson is drawn by Israeli and Palestinian leaders from the wider events in Egypt and other nations.

Stephen Twigg: May I join the Secretary of State in condemning the appalling murder of the Fogel family last Friday, and associate the Opposition Front Bench with what he said on the implications for the middle east peace process?
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that lasting peace requires reconciliation between citizens as well as agreements between their Governments? Will he therefore join me in praising the brilliant work of OneVoice Palestine and OneVoice Israel—brave local citizens who are making the case in parallel for a two-state solution?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman underlines what I said—that the condemnation of the killings at the weekend is shared across the House—and he makes the powerful point that peace in the middle east will be built on contact between citizens and civil society as well as on the decisions of political leaders. I certainly join him in congratulating those organisations on their work. We also urge Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the most of that work and to seize the opportunities in the coming weeks to advance the peace process.

Andrew Percy: No doubt the Palestinian Authority has made some genuine progress towards its road map obligations, but has the Foreign Secretary had a chance to assess the role of the Palestinians in inciting the sort of attacks that we saw last weekend?

William Hague: I am sure that it is not the Palestinian Authority who incite attacks of that kind, which my hon. Friend might see if he looks at what Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has done to build the attributes of a Palestinian state on the west bank. The last thing he wants is incidents of that kind. Of course, we do not know who incited those events, but I feel confident that it was not the Prime Minister and the President of the Palestinian Authority.

Council of Ministers

Toby Perkins: What recent discussions he has had with his Hungarian counterpart on priorities for the Hungarian presidency of the Council of Ministers of the EU.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary held a bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi on 7 December in London. I speak regularly to the Hungarian Europe Minister, Eniko Gyori, at meetings of both the General Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council, and most recently by telephone on 20 January, when we discussed energy policy and innovation priorities.

Toby Perkins: In February, the UK announced more job losses than any other country in the EU. In that context, what conversations has the Minister had with other EU Ministers to assist the UK Government in developing a plan for jobs and growth to replace their current strategies, which undermine both?

David Lidington: We have taken the lead at many meetings of EU Ministers in arguing that Europe should indeed give the highest priority to growth and global competitiveness, which means more work to complete the single market,
	to increase free trade with other parts of the world, and to cut the cost and complexity of the regulations that Europe imposes on European businesses.

Anne McIntosh: Just as the Czech spring presaged the rebirth of democracy and liberty in what were known as the eastern European countries, can we hope that the European Union, particularly the Hungarian presidency, can shine a light on those undergoing similar revolutions now in the middle east and adjoining countries?

David Lidington: We very much hope so. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been playing a leading part in those discussions at European level. We think it is time for the EU to carry out an urgent and comprehensive overhaul of its partnership policies with regard to the southern Mediterranean counties. We need to link those much more closely to economic and political reform in that region.

Keith Vaz: One of the priorities of the presidency must surely be the securing of the EU border. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Hungarian Foreign Minister about the deployment by Frontex of a rapid border intervention team—RABIT —on the border between Greece and Turkey? He will know that 90% of illegal immigration comes through that border, and we need to ensure that the RABIT force is protected and extended, in order to give Greece as much support as possible.

David Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are real problems on the Greco-Turkish border that affect migration into the whole of the EU. This is a matter to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration are giving a high priority in their conversations with their European counterparts.

Economic Prospects (EU)

David Ruffley: What recent discussions he has had in the General Affairs Council on economic prospects for the EU; and if he will make a statement.

David Lidington: I regularly take part in such discussions and emphasise our view that growth and global competitiveness should be the EU’s first priority.

David Ruffley: Will the Minister confirm that if the UK was ever to be pressured to join the European stability bail-out mechanism, it would require a treaty change, and that therefore a referendum would be given to the British people on that subject?

David Lidington: Membership of the proposed permanent European stability mechanism is open only to those countries that are members of the euro and have that as their currency. For the UK to join the euro, which would be necessary to take part in the ESM, there would have to be a referendum, provided that the European Union Bill becomes law.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is clear that some members of the eurozone are unlikely to be able to sustain membership in the long term, but it is unlikely that member states of the eurozone would suggest such a thing. However, Britain would be well placed to suggest that those countries should be given the chance to leave the eurozone and recreate their national currencies.

David Lidington: It is up to the elected Governments of individual countries to decide how to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s challenge. However, it is very much in the UK’s national interest that the eurozone finds a way to overcome its present problems and achieve financial stability and economic growth.

Anne Main: The previous Minister for Europe gave away £7 billion of our rebate. Was he sold a pup, or is the current Minister for Europe able to claw something back from that spendthrift way of spending our money?

David Lidington: I think that the previous Minister for Europe was sold a pup, although he was not helped by the fact that at the time his Chancellor and Prime Minister were not talking to each other, even about the figures that they used in those negotiations. I can assure my hon. Friend that in the negotiations on the new multi-annual financial framework, the Government will defend the British rebate, which we believe remains completely justified.

Wayne David: Given the importance of the eurozone to Britain, what are the Government doing to ensure that Britain is not excluded from decision-making processes that will have a direct impact on our economy?

David Lidington: We are ensuring that we engage fully on a bilateral basis with those of our partners who are members of the eurozone and with the European institutions. We also remain in regular contact with EU member states that are not part of the eurozone. I find, from talking to eurozone and non-eurozone members alike, that there is a common acceptance of and support for the participation of the UK and other non-eurozone members in discussions and decisions about the single market and the direction of European economic policy. There is no wish to relegate us to a side room.

Libya

David Tredinnick: What recent steps he has taken in response to the political situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement.

Glyn Davies: What recent steps he has taken in response to the political situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: The UK is at the forefront of the international effort to isolate the Gaddafi regime, deprive it of money and ensure that anyone responsible for abuses is held to account. We have taken swift action in the United Nations Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council. At the European Council on
	Friday, EU leaders called on Gaddafi to relinquish power. They agreed to examine all necessary options to protect the civilian population. I have just returned from the G8 meeting of Foreign Ministers in Paris, where we agreed on the need for urgent consideration in the United Nations Security Council of a wide range of additional measures to protect the Libyan population from attack.

David Tredinnick: With a view to Benghazi, does my right hon. Friend recall the fate of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq who were encouraged to revolt and then left to their fate when Saddam Hussein butchered them? What is my right hon. Friend going to do if compliance with the no-fly zone proves to be impossible. Is he happy at the thought that Benghazi will be left to its own devices?

William Hague: Yes, we are very conscious of what has happened on previous occasions. The Gaddafi regime has shown its willingness to strike back without compunction at its own civilian population and its ability to take back territory from people who have rebelled against his oppressive regime. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, time is of the essence. That is why we have urged colleagues in the G8 and elsewhere to agree to further urgent considerations at the United Nations Security Council. Anything we do must, of course, have a clear legal base and widespread international support, so my hon. Friend must consider things in that light.

Glyn Davies: Does my right hon. Friend have confidence in the sanctions currently in force against Libya? What discussions is he having with allies about how to strengthen those sanctions against Gaddafi and his regime?

William Hague: We have widened the restrictive measures against individuals close to Gaddafi. We have added the Libyan central bank and the Libyan investment authority to the EU asset freezing list. In so doing, the UK has increased the total of frozen Libyan assets in this country from £2 billion to £12 billion. Clearly, these things have an impact on the regime. We would now like further sanctions to be debated and agreed at the UN in New York, but I obviously do not want to advertise too much in advance what they might be.

Caroline Lucas: What other non-violent measures is the Secretary of State considering to put more pressure on Libya? I am thinking of things such as a UN-run escrow account for Libyan oil revenues or electronic jamming of all the regime’s communications.

William Hague: There is certainly scope to take other non-violent means and the hon. Lady has provided some examples of it. I believe it is important to discuss them with our international partners before announcing them in any detail or giving notice of their coming into effect, but she is quite right to draw attention to the potential for further measures.

Douglas Alexander: The Foreign Secretary has rightly said that Libya is in breach of United Nations Security Council resolution 1970. He went on to state this morning that
	“not every nation sees eye-to-eye on issues such as a no-fly zone”.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether specific proposals for a no-fly zone were tabled for discussion at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting last Thursday, at the European Council last Friday or, indeed, at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting today?

William Hague: When it comes to specific proposals, NATO is responsible for contingency planning and it is conducting it for specific plans for a no-fly zone. The other meetings were more at the level of political discussion of what is desirable. There are differences of view among many countries about this issue. What was agreed by G8 Foreign Ministers this morning was that we welcomed the recent declaration by the Arab League calling for a number of measures to protect and support the Libyan population. Clearly, what was called for by the Arab League included reference to a no-fly zone.

Douglas Alexander: Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition about arming the rebels:
	“We should not exclude various possibilities, and there is an argument to be made, but there are important legal, practical and other issues that would have to be resolved, including the UN arms embargo.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 30.]
	Can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the Government’s position on each of those issues, given the deteriorating situation of the anti-Gaddafi forces on the ground?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite right. The arms embargo agreed in United Nations resolution 1970 covers the whole country—that is, as it is understood by the members of the Security Council and by the vast majority of legal experts. The rebels and the Gaddafi regime are therefore in the same position as regards the arms embargo. One way of changing that would be to produce a new resolution, which would again require the agreement of the United Nations Security Council.
	In the G8 this morning, we agreed to welcome urgent consideration in the United Nations of
	“a wide range of measures to ensure the protection of the Libyan population”
	and to
	“increase the pressure, including through economic measures, for Mr Qadhafi to leave.”
	That now requires additional work at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Libya

Caroline Dinenage: What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on support for and participation in the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya.

William Hague: We are working closely with partners, including the United Nations, the European Union and NATO, to develop contingency plans to allow the international community to respond quickly and effectively to the developing situation on the ground in Libya. The plans cover a range of options, including the possible establishment of a no-fly zone. As I have
	said, G8 Foreign Ministers have welcomed the recent declaration by the Arab League calling for measures to support and protect the Libyan population.

Caroline Dinenage: Given that the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council recently endorsed the idea of a no-fly zone, would it not be prudent to allow them to take the lead while the United Kingdom adopts the same policy as the United States of strategic patience?

William Hague: Patience must, of course, be tempered by recognition of the fact that the situation is urgent and that events in Libya are moving rapidly on the ground, or at least have done so in recent days. As for my hon. Friend’s important point about participation and the Arab states and the GCC taking the lead, one of the vital elements in any no-fly zone or other operations to protect and support the Libyan civilian population would be the active participation of Arab states.

Bob Ainsworth: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there are many reasons for the American President’s caution? He is worried about the west being seen to lead, his forces are stretched, and he is enormously worried about the potential for difficulties in the Gulf and the Arabian peninsula. If we share his analysis, why do we not share his caution?

William Hague: The United States has agreed with us on the contingency planning in NATO, and also about the very serious nature of what is happening in Libya and the need for Gaddafi to go. The things for which we have argued are the same things for which the United States has been arguing.
	As the right hon. Gentleman says, there are currently many other demands on military and diplomatic resources, but I think he will agree that if Libya were left as a pariah state, particularly after recent events—with Gaddafi running amok, exacting reprisals on his own people and estranged from the rest of the world as a potential source of terrorism in the future—that would pose a danger to the national interest of this country and, I would argue, that of the United States as well.

Richard Ottaway: The Foreign Secretary has confirmed what the Prime Minister said yesterday: that a no-fly zone will not be imposed unless there is a clear legal basis for it. Will he confirm that that is a reference to a United Nations chapter VII resolution?

William Hague: The clearest legal base for any such operation is obviously a chapter VII resolution of the United Nations Security Council. Lawyers can provide my hon. Friend, and all of us, with extensive arguments about the various circumstances in which nations are allowed to take action, which can of course include self-defence but can also include overwhelming humanitarian need. This is not a completely open-and-shut argument, but the clearest basis is a chapter VII resolution.

Denis MacShane: But can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, actually, UN law is whatever communists in Beijing say it is? There is a whiff of Bosnia of 15, 16, 17 years ago about all this. We do not want the Foreign Secretary to talk about
	discussions at the UN, empty EU statements and NATO meetings that result in nothing; we want him to discover his mojo and take a lead in putting policies in place before Benghazi falls.

Mr Speaker: We thank the right hon. Gentleman. I call the Foreign Secretary.

William Hague: I will make a point of hoping never to discover what motivates the right hon. Gentleman, and never to partake of any of it. [Interruption.] Labour Members are agreeing with me.
	I do not accept that UN law is made in Beijing. It is important to have a clear legal base for actions we take internationally, as well as widespread international support and demonstrable need, and since the British Government, along with the French Government, have been absolutely in the forefront of ensuring that all the international sanctions and measures so far have been taken, the right hon. Gentleman is not in much of a position to criticise.

Libya

Stephen Gilbert: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of consular services provided to UK nationals during the recent events in Libya; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: In what has been the most complex FCO-led evacuation since Kuwait, some 600 British nationals were safely brought out of Libya, and we are all grateful for the immense amount of hard work done by those both in this country, and particularly in Libya, to look after our constituents. However, there are always lessons to be learned, and the Foreign Secretary has asked for a review of our evacuation practices in order to make sure that the practice overall is as good as the very best examples of it.

Stephen Gilbert: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Given that article 20 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union allows British nationals to receive consular assistance from any EU member state, what discussions is he having with other EU states to ensure effective and co-ordinated EU responses to such crises in future?

Alistair Burt: There was co-operation and consultation between all European partners right from the beginning. We often shared each other’s planes. The United Kingdom was able to bring out 819 foreign nationals of 43 different countries by way of the work we did. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is essential in such circumstances that there is a lot of co-operation, and we will continue to make sure our practices provide for that at all times.

Valerie Vaz: The son of a constituent of mine is teaching in Riyadh. What extra consular services and what contingency plans are in place should the situation in Riyadh change?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady rightly draws attention to the fact that at present we should be looking at contingency plans right across the middle east and the Gulf, just in case. I can assure her that that work is going on. We all wish to see a stable middle east and
	north African region, but all the contingency plans are being reworked to make sure they are as effective as possible, and that applies as much to Saudi as it would to Bahrain, Yemen and all other points east.

Middle East

John Baron: What recent steps he has taken to promote political reform in the countries of the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: Britain is ready to support the countries of the middle east in putting in place the building blocks for more open, plural and free societies. As part of our long-term approach, on 8 February in Tunis I announced the launch of the Arab partnership to support the reforms the countries of the region need for a stable and prosperous future. But reform must be home-grown; it cannot be imposed by outsiders, and leadership must come from within the countries concerned.

John Baron: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer, but I suggest that the provision of independent and accurate information has never been more important than in these uncertain times. Will the Government therefore revisit their decision that is forcing cuts on the BBC World Service, and particularly the BBC Arabic service? It is extremely short-sighted given that service’s excellent reputation in the region.

William Hague: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the BBC World Service, and in particular the Arabic service, will continue to play a very valuable role in the region: it will continue its 24-hour television channel, and its radio services will continue through FM relays as well as through shortwave services in the region. Those are a continuing and important part of the BBC World Service. Indeed, in the light of recent events, the BBC has already revisited some of its recent decisions that would have affected Arab nations.

Ann Clwyd: I took part in a special United Nations conference on the plight of Palestinian prisoners last week, and the descriptions of the conditions in which they are held in Israeli prisons and detention centres were appalling. We were told of torture, inhumane treatment and so on. Some 200 to 300 young people under the age of 18 are held in those conditions. What will the Foreign Secretary do to prevail on the Israelis to adhere to the conventions to which they have signed up?

William Hague: Of course we believe that there should be the proper treatment of prisoners throughout the world, including in Israel and anywhere else in the middle east. We have taken up concerns about such issues in the past. If the right hon. Lady would like to give me more details of what she found in that particular case, I will of course look to take them up with the Israeli authorities.

Middle East

Jeremy Lefroy: What recent assessment he made of the political situation in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: The question asks about our assessment of the political situation in the middle east and I am tempted to say simply, “It is extremely tricky.” Perhaps I might add that the unprecedented events of recent weeks have created profound political undertones and at the moment it is not possible to say just what the outcomes of these great events will be.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Minister for his reply. The Egypt-Israel peace treaty is a successful model of a land-for-peace agreement, and Egypt has played a crucial role throughout the middle east peace process. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that agreement continues to be a cornerstone of the process?

Alistair Burt: We were all reassured when one of the first statements made by Egypt’s military council was that it accepted and will adhere to its international agreements. I think everyone understood that it was referring specifically to the peace agreement with Israel, and I hope that that will provide people with confidence. When I was in Egypt last week, I saw the relationship between the military and the politicians, and it is to be hoped that there will be a process towards democratic elections and government, and that that peace treaty will be adhered to by a future Government.

Mike Gapes: Will the Minister give us the Government’s security assessment of the situation in Bahrain and the potential for a Shi’a-Sunni conflict both there and in Saudi Arabia?

Alistair Burt: Obviously, we watch events in Bahrain with mounting concern. The sense is that the Bahraini Government should continue to give an opportunity for legitimate protest and that the dialogue should continue with opposition parties. It is incumbent on both the opposition and the Government to keep that process of reform going. On intervention from the GCC at the request of Bahrain, it is essential that that is consistent with the spirit of reform, and not repression.

Topical Questions

Barbara Keeley: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: Last night, I met the Foreign Minister of Japan, Mr Matsumoto, and again conveyed the condolences of the British people after Friday’s earthquake and tsunami. He expressed the thanks and appreciation of his country for the support that we have sent, particularly in the form of search and rescue teams. We also discussed the need to co-operate closely on ascertaining the whereabouts of British nationals in Japan.

Barbara Keeley: I am sure that every Member of this House would wish to be associated with the condolences that the Foreign Secretary just mentioned. The Tibetan Government-in-exile are debating the Dalai Lama’s
	retirement as their political leader. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what support the British Government would give to a newly elected political leader of the Tibetan people in the just cause of gaining greater autonomy for Tibet, given that he has outlined this Government’s support for newly elected leaders in north Africa?

William Hague: This Government continue the policy adopted by the previous Government on the status of Tibet. We await further details on what has been announced by the Dalai Lama in respect of an elected leader in the future. We will have to see the details of that before we respond to it in any greater detail.

Robert Halfon: My right hon. Friend made some welcome remarks about the tragic murder of the Fogel family on the west bank. Is he aware that the Palestinian Government recently gave $2,000 to the family of a terrorist who attacked an Israeli soldier? What steps can he take to stop the incitement of terrorism by the Palestinians?

William Hague: I join my hon. Friend in deploring any incitement of terrorism by anyone on any side of the disputes in the middle east. We are not aware as Ministers of the particular instance to which he refers, but if he would like to get in touch with us with the details we will, of course, look into it.

Douglas Alexander: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the Foreign Secretary’s expression of sympathy towards the people of Japan at this terrible time? The right hon. Gentleman told the House on 14 February that the British Government had
	“received a request from the Egyptian Government to freeze the assets of several former Egyptian officials.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 715.]
	Will he tell the House whether he has acted on that request from the Egyptian authorities and gone ahead and frozen the assets of all those former officials?

William Hague: We have acted on that request with our European Union partners. One difficulty with pursuing this to the necessary point of freezing the actual assets is the lack of information that has been supplied by the Egyptian authorities. We have urged progress within the European Union so that this is done on an EU basis, and that means that the decisive action remains to be taken. The UK has been at the forefront of the arguments in the EU to take action.

Amber Rudd: Political violence by Mugabe’s militias in Zimbabwe is rising again. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the court ruling last week removing the Movement for Democratic Change Speaker and four of its MPs risks derailing the fragile journey to political reform? Will he raise this as a matter of urgency with President Zuma of South Africa and other leaders in the region?

Henry Bellingham: I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the arrest and detention of those MDC MPs. It is a disgrace
	that they remain in custody. However, our ambassador in Harare attended the hearing this morning for Elton Mangoma, who has now been released on bail. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential that President Zuma carries on his good work with the Southern African Development Community to create a robust road map to credible elections.

Stephen McCabe: Do the Government find it acceptable that residents of Camp Ashraf—opponents of the Iranian regime—are subjected to a 24-hour campaign of abuse and torture, including bombardment by 210 loudspeakers? What on earth are we doing about it?

Alistair Burt: We are aware of both the intrusion of loudspeakers and occasional suggestions that the residents of Camp Ashraf are denied medical assistance. The UK meets representatives of the Iraqi Government’s Camp Ashraf committee, the UN regularly visits the camp and we make every effort to urge the Iraqi authorities to ensure that the residents of Camp Ashraf are treated in accordance with international humanitarian standards.

Peter Bone: The coalition agreement, on page 19, calls for the Government
	“to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.”
	Tomorrow, this House will be asked to agree a stability mechanism for the eurozone, a decision over which we have a veto. Will the Foreign Secretary withhold agreement on the stability mechanism until we have reform of the working time directive?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Business, Innovation and Skills are engaged in drawing up Government proposals to address the problem identified by my hon. Friend. The appropriate time to do that is likely to be when the Commission comes forward with new proposals on the working time directive during the next 12 months.

Caroline Lucas: Libya’s rapid plunge towards civil war is further evidence, if it were needed, of the irresponsibility of selling arms to regimes that seek to quell dissent through force. Will the Government now work to ensure that the UN arms embargo to Libya is extended to all regimes that engage in repression?

William Hague: It is an immediate priority to ensure that that arms embargo is properly observed. It is necessary to review how we give export licences to various countries around the middle east in the future, and we will conduct that review.

Roger Williams: Brazil has one of the most rapidly growing of all global economies. Unfortunately, a visit by the Deputy Prime Minister and another Foreign Office Minister had to be postponed. When are there plans to meet the new President of that very important country?

Jeremy Browne: I have not yet had the opportunity to visit Brazil, although I was due to travel with the Deputy Prime Minister. My hon. Friend makes a very accurate point about the growing significance of Brazil and I am delighted to announce that the Foreign Secretary intends to visit shortly.

Helen Goodman: Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said that he wanted to establish dialogue with the opposition in Libya. Unfortunately, over the past five days, my constituent Dr Burwaiss, who has contacts in the national liberation council in Benghazi, has had extreme difficulty, despite his and my efforts, in finding out where and to whom information should be sent. Can this now be corrected?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her question; we have spoken about this over the weekend. The ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, is working on all available contacts, including the relatives of the gentleman whom the hon. Lady has mentioned. We will make sure not only that contact is made as best as possible but that information is passed back to her constituent.

Martin Horwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that the act of inviting in troops from militarily superior neighbours has evil precedents in the crushing of human rights in 20th-century Europe? If so, as a good historian, will he share that view with the Bahraini and Saudi Governments?

William Hague: We are extremely concerned about the escalation of the situation in Bahrain, particularly the decision of the Government of Bahrain to declare a state of emergency. We call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to avoid violence. The Government of Bahrain should respect the right to peaceful protest, respond to the legitimate concerns of the Bahraini people and persist with their attempts to draw others into a dialogue on reform. The intervention by GCC partners at the request of the Bahraini Government should also be consistent with that, supporting reform and not repression, allowing a swift return to peaceful conditions and creating an environment in which dialogue can take place.

Rachel Reeves: Last Thursday, I joined students from Swallow Hill community college and Abbey Grange school from my constituency on a visit to Auschwitz. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in commending the Holocaust Educational Trust’s work and will he confirm what funding the Government will commit to supporting the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation to ensure that future generations can see what happens when racism and hatred go unchecked?

David Lidington: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this point. The Government are determined to preserve the memory of the holocaust to educate future generations and we support the long-term preservation of Auschwitz-Birkenau as a site of remembrance and reflection. We are currently finalising the details of exactly how we will support the foundation and I assure her that an announcement will be made very soon.

Douglas Carswell: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the appetite for democracy is universal? If so, what moral support and encouragement will he offer those in Iran who seek to live freely as we do?

William Hague: I agree with my hon. Friend. We believe that human rights, including democratic rights, are universal. It is particularly pertinent to raise the situation in Iran because the two principal leaders of the opposition forces in Iran, Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi, have been detained with their wives—they have disappeared with their wives. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised this matter because it is important, amidst the current turbulence in the middle east, not to forget what is happening in Iran and to remember that a country that has preached support for protest in other nations does not hesitate brutally to suppress protest within its own borders.

Ian Austin: Hamas terrorists fired long-range rockets into apartments in Beersheba just a few weeks ago. With Hamas’s leader calling for jihad, not negotiation, and with Iran supplying weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban, what more can the Secretary of State do to curtail terrorist attacks against our forces in Afghanistan and our allies in the middle east?

William Hague: I listed earlier some of the things we are doing. Clearly, we are intercepting some of the shipments of arms that have been involved. That is how we know about the rockets that were being shipped to the Taliban and about the ammunition involved. I set out some of the other actions, including diplomatic actions, that we are taking. We have stepped up our efforts in that regard, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask us to do still more.

Andrew Rosindell: When the Foreign Secretary next meets Secretary of State Clinton, will he clarify with her the American Government’s position on the Falkland Islands? Do they support British sovereignty or not?

William Hague: I last met Secretary Clinton last night in Paris. That was not part of our discussion, because clearly we were discussing the situation in Libya, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not have any difficulty with the United States Government on that issue.

Angus Robertson: The European Union’s 27 Energy Ministers are meeting today to discuss nuclear safety in the wake of the horrific developments in Japan. As a minimum, will the UK Government support Germany, France and Spain in their support of a proposal by the Austrian Energy Minister, Niki Berlakovich, that there should be stress tests in all nuclear power stations across the European Union, including those in the UK?

David Lidington: There is a range of possible options that European Energy Ministers will discuss today. The important principle is that politicians should be guided by scientific evidence about the best steps available to ensure that nuclear safety is maintained.

Duncan Hames: Air strikes against his own people, the use of mercenaries, the imprisonment of foreign journalists—what does the Foreign Secretary believe would be the impact on human rights elsewhere in the world were Gaddafi’s tactics seen to be successful?

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and a parallel point to the one that the Prime Minister made here yesterday. If Gaddafi succeeded in suppressing the desire for a freer and more open country in Libya, there are tyrants elsewhere who would draw the wrong lesson from it. That is why we are at the forefront of all the activity that I described during our Question Time today, but I stress alongside that that whatever we do must be legal and have international support.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Foreign Secretary raise at the next European Council meeting the case of my constituent, David Petrie, who is one of a group of English language lecturers in Italy who have been fighting for a European right to equal pay for 25 years? After six victories in the European Court, they thought they were going to get justice, only to find that the Berlusconi Government have changed the law.

David Lidington: We regard the treatment of the lettori as completely unacceptable, and through both our embassy in Rome and ministerial contacts we are pursuing the matter energetically with the Italian authorities.

Julian Lewis: If Britain decides to take part in an unanticipated military commitment to engage in a no-fly zone in Libya, will the extra cost be added to or will it be taken from the existing defence budget?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will no doubt make a judgment about that, if it arises.

John Cryer: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), my understanding is that a list was provided by the Egyptian authorities of people connected to the Mubarak regime. Is the information on that list inadequate, or are other members of the EU dragging their feet?

William Hague: Both of those, to some degree. Certainly, the information on the list was inadequate. This is a matter that is handled by the Treasury. It is important that the House has an update on it, but both of those factors are present.

Margot James: During last night’s Adjournment debate on the future of the BBC Hindi service, the House was pleased to hear that discussions are taking place between the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development that could lead to World Service expenditure being considered as official development assistance. Does my right hon. Friend agree that everything possible should be done to protect this very important part of British soft diplomacy?

William Hague: It is possible for some of the expenditure of the BBC World Service to be classified in the way that my hon. Friend describes. In the Foreign Office we
	have done everything we can to give financial support, including transitional support, to the BBC World Service. She will be aware of the fact that in three years it will be funded by the BBC licence fee, and that transfer of funding will give new opportunities for the future. But every part of the public sector must contribute to improving its efficiency and saving money; there is no getting away from that.

Russell Brown: None of us can imagine the plight that tens of thousands of people are experiencing in Japan at this time, and they include UK citizens. My constituent’s son, his wife and their seven-month-old child are stuck in the north of Sendai city. They are in a hotel where a bus turned up this morning and took away a number of European nationals who were fit and healthy, including Irish nationals. However, the only advice being given by our
	Foreign Office is, regrettably, just that—advice. It is not assisting with transport. Can something more be done?

Jeremy Browne: The British Government have put in a hugely comprehensive response to help British nationals in Japan. We have supplemented what is already a large embassy with an additional 45 staff from across Asia and elsewhere in the world. We are trying to do everything possible to help British nationals in what is a chaotic and difficult situation, but if the hon. Gentleman gives me the details of the case that he has just raised, I will ensure that I give it my personal attention.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry that some colleagues are disappointed: the demand today is huge and the supply limited.

Points of Order

Iain Wright: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In business questions last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—whom I am pleased to see in his place today—asked about the 563 parliamentary questions to the Department for Education that are currently unanswered. In written responses to me, the Department has stated that only 10% of named day questions and 20% of letters from hon. Members have been answered on time, with some going as far back as November. On top of Building Schools for the Future and school sport partnerships, that shows a Department in a shambolic and chaotic state, whether through incompetence or laziness. It is not good enough. A schoolchild who had done only 10% of their homework would get detention. What can you do, Mr Speaker, to keep Ministers back after school for failing to do their homework, which—on a serious note—is preventing hon. Members from holding the Government to account for their education policy and acting on behalf of their constituents?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. I sympathise with the concern that he has expressed. I understand that other hon. Members have been affected in the same way. I deprecate late replies, but Ministers are responsible for their answers. Oral questions to the Department for Education will be taken next Monday. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and others with similar experiences and views seek advice from the Table Office on how to pursue this matter. The Deputy Leader of the House is in his place and will have heard the concern expressed. This is a serious matter, and I hope that something will indeed be done to address the concern that the hon. Gentleman and others regularly raise.

John Spellar: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any notification that either the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government or the Secretary of State for Health wants to make a statement about the crisis in Southern Cross Healthcare, whose share price has collapsed to one hundredth of its peak? Southern Cross Healthcare has 750 care homes across the country, with 31,000 elderly and vulnerable residents. They and their relatives need urgent reassurance and action from Ministers.

Mr Speaker: The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I have received no indication that any Minister wants to make a statement on the subject. He has put his concerns about the matter on the record explicitly. I will not call him an old hand, because he will take offence, but he is a wily operator, and I have a feeling that he will use the opportunities open to him in the House to pursue this matter for as long as he judges necessary.

Financial Services (Regulation of Derivatives)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.  23 )

Steven Baker: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require certain financial institutions to prepare parallel accounts on the basis of the lower of historic cost and mark to market for their exposure to derivatives; and for connected purposes.
	I rise not as an expert in derivatives or derivative accounting, but as someone who has wrestled with the problems of the banking system in the company of experts, both academic and practical. I am persuaded that a parallel, more conservative accounting regime for derivatives would mitigate some of the worst risks in the financial system.
	Even though banks are governed by overarching EU and Basel rules, it is for British regulators to approve the day-to-day activities of British banks. This is a profoundly important role. My Bill is a moderate proposal that seeks to improve accounting transparency to enable that role, because, as Mervyn King has said,
	“banks are global in life but national in death”.
	The Bill could be enacted within the current international regulatory framework.
	To explain why this measure is profoundly important, I would like to share with Members an analogy of the banking system. Naturally, it will short-circuit some of the details, but even though it remains necessarily complex. Let us imagine that we discover a little-known territory within the EU on which to establish a colony. Let us call it Ruritania and allow its currency to be pounds. We will establish our fledgling colony with four people: a depositor, Alice, who arrives with £103; a builder, Bob—naturally—an entrepreneur, Matilda; and a banker, Mallory, with a colourful recent past in Iceland and Ireland. Interest rates are 0.5%. Mallory establishes a bank and persuades the other three inhabitants of the importance of a healthy banking system, so Ruritania’s constitution contains a limited guarantee from future taxpayers of £10 in favour of the bank. Under central European banking authority devolved rules, Ruritania classifies that guarantee as core tier 1 bank capital, meaning that there is no actual capital, just a taxpayer guarantee.
	Alice, seeking to keep her money safe, deposits it in a demand account at the bank. Matilda, the entrepreneur, wants to start a business and approaches Mallory for a loan. The bank retains a supposedly prudent reserve of £3 from Alice’s deposit and lends to Matilda, at 7% interest, the remaining £100 of cash deposited by Alice. Matilda then employs Bob, who wants his year’s wages up front. She hands over the £100 to Bob, which he deposits in the bank. Let us set aside for the moment the fact that the bank just doubled the money supply of Ruritania, as that issue is dealt with in the Financial Services (Regulation of Deposits and Lending) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), which I was glad to support. The banker now has two liabilities: a deposit of £103 from Alice and a deposit of £100 from Bob. Offsetting those, he has two assets: a 25-year loan of £100 and cash of £103. So far, so simple.
	Mallory wants a Ferrari today, which he can buy for £20. His compensation contract is 20% of profits, which is not unusual in banking. He therefore seeks to record an instant £100 profit for his bank, and he knows just how to do that under EU bank accounting rules. He phones an insurer active in the credit derivatives market—let us call it GIA—which agrees to write a derivative known as a credit default swap for a fee of 1% per annum. It is a guarantee of 95% of the loan.
	The bank quickly establishes a new company, a special purpose vehicle, which buys the future loan cash flows of £275. The credit derivative is written directly with that new company, the SPV. The SPV finances its purchases by issuing two bonds: a 95% senior bond, rated triple A by two august rating agencies because GIA is so rated; and a 5% junior or equity tranche. The bank buys the two bonds with the £100 cash. The funds then flow back from the SPV to the bank to settle that purchase. That kind of circular flow of cash is commonly used. The result is that the equity tranche of £5 is a deduction from the bank’s £10 tier 1 capital. Members will recall that that capital is a future taxpayers’ pledge, not hard cash.
	Under mark-to-market rules, Mallory, by holding the bond on his trading book, records an instant but unrealised profit of £105. After replenishing his tier 1 capital with £5, he shows that £100 clear profit. That profit has been recorded, even though the bank has not received any income from the loan, and that loan might never be repaid. Mallory the banker is not concerned about that, however; he has his Ferrari. Any shareholders are not concerned either, as the bank also declares an £80 dividend.
	The banker and his shareholders have taken £100 of the £103 total money supply of Ruritania, declared it as profit and spent it abroad. Mallory likes mark-to-market accounting and seeks to grow his bank by making further investments. He cannot sell the bond on the open market, so he borrows against it through an arrangement with a central bank, known as a repo. He receives £205 in cash from the central bank, and the central bank has a mortgage on his bond.
	Mallory uses the balance as collateral for further bets, such as derivatives with other banks and low-priced Irish bank-issued bonds, in the hope of more fast profits. Unfortunately, his bank becomes insolvent when Matilda misses a loan payment, and it cannot refinance the central bank’s funding, so the central bank takes ownership of the bond—Mallory’s bank’s one decent asset. Depositors ask for their funds, but the bank cannot pay. That could be the crisis of 2014.
	On our Ruritanian bank’s liquidation, we find that two depositors have claims for £203, but there is only £6 in cash; all the rest had been pledged as collateral and the bank’s assets cannot be sold. There happens to have been another freakishly unlikely collapse. Stakeholders had not realised that the bank’s one decent asset had been repo’d with the central bank, because it remained on Mallory’s bank’s balance sheet right up to foreclosure. Mallory, of course, lives happily ever after.
	Financial derivatives and certain other “synthetic” investments are governed by mark to market. Banks record a profit or loss in respect of each derivative by
	comparing the price of the asset or liability in today’s market with the value of the position on the last balance sheet date. What is wrong with that? Marking to market enables banks to record unrealised increases in value as profits, but that is not the case with loans. The arbitrage between the different accounting regimes for loans and for derivatives therefore incentivises banks to transact business in derivatives. The fundamental driving force behind the phenomenal growth of the credit derivatives market has been profit acceleration using that accounting arbitrage.
	Regulators need to be aware of those exposures in order to help avert any future threats. That requires the publication of accounts with derivatives and other investments recorded at the lower of historic cost and their mark-to-market value. If my Bill becomes law, the ability to declare future hoped-for income as profit today and the rest of the absurd activity that I have described would be restrained.
	If we want banks to refocus on stimulating the real economy, we need to change those incentives. I therefore ask the House to support this Bill and, in so doing, to correct one of the most damaging and misunderstood weaknesses of the current British banking system.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Steve Baker, Mr Douglas Carswell, Andrea Leadsom and Chris Heaton-Harris present the Bill.
	Steve Baker accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 June and to be printed (Bill 162).

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will have heard earlier the point of order from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) about the delay in responses to hon. Members’ questions from the Department for Education. The whole House should be concerned when there has been a delay, and you, Sir, have made clear your views on the issue.
	I have now investigated the matter, and it seems as though there is a specific problem within the Department for Education in that there has been a technical failure in the IT system that it uses to track parliamentary questions. The problem has now been identified and fixed, and officials are working towards providing outstanding responses as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) will today have received a letter explaining the delay in those terms. I hope, Mr Speaker, that normal service will be resumed as soon as possible, and I know that the Department would wish to apologise to any Member of the House who has been inconvenienced by the delay caused by these circumstances.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for what he has said. The situation is clearly both regrettable and unsatisfactory, and it is much to be hoped that it can be avoided in future. However, the speed with which he has investigated the matter will, I think, be appreciated by all right hon. and hon. Members.

Scotland Bill

[3rd Allocated Day]
	Further considered in Committee

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Clause 38
	 — 
	Commencement

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Abolition of regional members of Scottish Parliament

‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1—
	(a) in subsection (2) “Two members” is substituted for “One member”; and at the end there is inserted “save for those identified in paragraph 1(a) to (c) of Schedule 1, each of which shall return one member,”;
	(b) subsection (3) is omitted.
	(3) In section 5, subsections (1) and (3) to (9) are omitted.
	(4) Sections 6, 7, 8 and 10 are omitted.
	(5) In section 11, subsection (2) is substituted by—
	“(2) A person is not entitled to vote as an elector in more than one constituency at a general election, and may cast no more than two votes at a poll for the return of constituency members.”.
	(6) In section 12—
	(a) in subsection (2), paragraphs (e) and (f) are omitted;
	(b) subsection (3) is omitted;
	(c) after subsection (4) the following subsection is inserted—
	“(4A) The provision to be made under subsection (1) must include provision for—
	(a) each elector to cast one or two votes of equal value, with no more than one vote to be given to any one candidate, in constituencies returning two members;
	(b) the two candidates with the most valid votes to be elected in such constituencies.”.
	(7) In Schedule 1—
	(a) for paragraph 1 there is substituted—
	“(1) The constituencies are—
	(a) the Orkney Islands,
	(b) the Shetland Islands
	(c) the Western Isles [Na h-Eileanan An Iar], and
	(d) the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland at the time of an ordinary or extraordinary general election for the Scottish Parliament, except the constituencies of Orkney and Shetland and Na h-Eileanan An Iar”;
	(b) paragraphs 3 to 14 are omitted.’.—(Mr Donohoe.)
	Brought up, read the First time, and motion made ( 14  March), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question again proposed.

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing new clause 2—Regional members of the Scottish  Parliament —
	‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 81, after subsection (2), there is inserted—
	“(2A) No provision shall be made under subsection (2) for any allowances for representative work in any constituency or region by a regional member in a registered political party or a group of such regional members; and no allowances may be made for
	offices or staff or related expenses incurred by such members other than in connection with or at the Parliament’s place of meeting or in connection with a committee meeting.
	(2B) Any allowances paid to regional members in a registered political party shall be founded on the assumption that they are representatives of that party from the relevant region and not from any single constituency.”.
	(3) In Schedule 3, after paragraph 2 , there is inserted—
	2A The standing orders shall include provision for withdrawing from a regional member in a registered political party any or all of his rights and privileges as a member, including any allowances, if he is found to have purported to act, or has held himself out, as a constituency member for any single constituency or for a group of constituencies other than the region from which he was elected.”’.

Brian H Donohoe: Let me continue where we left off yesterday in discussing new clauses 1 and 2, particularly the question of first past the post being the fairer system—

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian H Donohoe: I will give way when I have developed my argument one stage further than when I left off. An important aspect of this is that first past the post is the system that is best understood by the electorate—indeed, I would argue, it is almost the only system that is understood by the electorate.

Angus MacNeil: I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks at yesterday’s Hansard, he will find that we finished where I left off. At 10 pm last night, I was about to ask him what he had against the good people of the Western Isles in wanting to give them only one Member, with every other constituency getting two.

Brian H Donohoe: I have always thought that the Member who looks after sheep should be able to count. If he could count, he would know that there are not that many people in the electorate of the Western Isles. In those circumstances, I thought it only fair that there should be just the one Member. As I said previously, there would be one Member for Orkney and one Member for Shetland. That would mean that there would be 118 Members of the Scottish Parliament, all elected on the basis of first past the post. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that I have got the figures wrong, perhaps I need to go back to school to do a bit of arithmetic, but I can tell him that I was one of the brightest children in the school at arithmetic; indeed, I got 100% on many occasions.
	However, perhaps one area where I was not very strong was dates, because earlier in the debate I said to the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish elections were on 3 May whereas—he should have corrected me—they are on 5 May.

Ian Davidson: Is it the case that the school my hon. Friend attended was so good that it was approved?

Brian H Donohoe: It was so good that it was known as Irvine Royal Academy. Anyway, we will move on very quickly from that point.

Alan Reid: rose—

Brian H Donohoe: I am sure I can give way to the hon. Gentleman as well.

Alan Reid: According to Hansard, just before the hon. Gentleman sat down last night, he said that there would be 119 Members of the Scottish Parliament. He just said that there would be 118. My understanding is that all 59 constituencies, apart from the Western Isles, would have two Members, and that the Western Isles would get one. I think that that makes 117.

Brian H Donohoe: I think that we are wandering into maths rather than arithmetic, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, that would be a saving to the public purse, which is very important. Perhaps one could call it a Freudian slip. I have come to the conclusion that he is right and that the number should indeed be 117, and not 119 as I suggested.
	Moving swiftly on—

Mark Lazarowicz: rose—

Brian H Donohoe: I do not think I am going to be allowed to move on swiftly.

Mark Lazarowicz: Surely with the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which will reduce the number of parliamentary constituencies, the correct figure would in fact be 103.

Brian H Donohoe: If the hon. Gentleman intervenes again to give me some understanding of that point, I might be able to accede to it.

David Mundell: rose—

Brian H Donohoe: Oh, there we are. The Minister is now popping up.

David Mundell: Perhaps I might help the hon. Gentleman. My calculation is that there would be 101 Members. After the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, there will be 52 constituencies in Scotland. If each had two Members, there would be 104. However, there are three constituencies that he feels should have only one Member, although my reading of new clause 1 is that people would still have two votes. There would therefore be 101 Members in the new Scottish Parliament. Does he think that that would be sufficient to conduct the Parliament’s business?

Brian H Donohoe: The Minister has made my point very well in relation to making savings, which is the next point that I want to make progress on, if I may.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian H Donohoe: Of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is talking about Westminster Parliament constituencies or Scottish Parliament constituencies, because the numbers are different? There are 59 Scottish Parliament constituencies, but once the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has been passed there will be only 52 Scottish constituencies for the Westminster Parliament.

Brian H Donohoe: That is common sense, if I may say so. When I made the calculation to put together my submission to Calman, we did not have this nonsense of reducing the number of MPs in this place. That idea is patently stupid in Scotland. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is present, will know that the area he represents will become even more enormous under these calculations than it is. Perhaps the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should visit him to check out what his expenses should be in those circumstances. However, I digress somewhat.
	I shall return to the issue of savings and first past the post. It is clear from this debate that there is a case to be made for this idea. It is clear from the number of public representatives on the London assembly that there can be adequate government for a population double the size of Scotland’s with some 30 members. Given the responsibilities in London, one would presume that it was possible to run the Scottish Government with the numbers that I propose.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman wants to reduce the number of parliamentary representatives from Scotland. Will he lead by example and suggest that Scotland no longer needs to send any MPs to Westminster, because Scotland should be independent and all powers pertaining to Scotland should be moved from Westminster back to Scotland?

Brian H Donohoe: The first people who could go in these circumstances are, of course, the nats. That would be very useful. I am surprised that only four of their six Members are here today. However, looking at the Labour Benches, perhaps I should not argue that point too forcefully.
	To return to my serious argument, first past the post is the most sensible system on the basis of turnout. If we look at the turnout at elections—today I had the good fortune of having the Library do so—we see that there is no doubt that we, as a group, need to reconnect with the public. It is highly probable that we will go below 50% turnout at this year’s Scottish elections. In the 2007 election, the turnout was just above 52%. In the election to the Westminster Parliament last year, the figure was just under 64%. On that basis, we should consider the matter seriously.
	Just 100 years ago, when elections in this country were taken very seriously, the turnout in the UK election was 86.8%, and even in Scotland it was 84.7%. I know that that was in 1910, but it was the complete opposite of what is going on today. I argue, and will argue till the coos come hame, that unless and until we reconnect with the public, the downward trend will continue. If turnout goes below 50%, as is highly probable, what mandate will there be?

Greg Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore arguing in favour of a system rather like the Australians have, in which people are fined if they do not exercise their right to vote?

Brian H Donohoe: I am grateful for the intervention, but I disagree with the idea of compulsory voting and fines. I have been to Australia to examine the system, and it just does not work as it should, so I would not advocate it. In Africa, however, people queue for weeks before an election to cast their vote, and we should have some of that attitude in this country. I do not think we will ever get it unless we reconnect with the public, and certainly not if we continue to have list Members north of the border.
	That brings me neatly to new clause 2. If there is to be no change to the voting system, we have to consider the role of the list Members in the Scottish Parliament. We must seriously consider withdrawing the funding that is currently available to them, which allows them to come into constituencies to cherry-pick and cause mayhem.

Cathy Jamieson: Does my hon. Friend share my concern, which has been a consistent concern in Scotland, that at various times list Members appear to have promoted themselves as constituency Members? Does he agree that that must be tackled as a matter of priority? Does he further understand that in the spirit of the Scottish Parliament rules, it was anticipated that regional list Members would notify constituency Members whenever they took up casework? In my almost 12 years as an MSP, it was very rare—

The Chairman: Order. I know that this debate is very important, but may we have shorter interventions?

Brian H Donohoe: There is no one in the House who knows the system north of the border better than my hon. Friend, because she was an MSP, and still is until, I think, the 24th of this month.

Cathy Jamieson: The 22nd.

Brian H Donohoe: I was two out again. I am not doing so well in that sense.

Graeme Morrice: Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), is my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) aware of the recent case in which a regional list MSP for Central Scotland was claiming to be almost a constituency MSP for Airdrie and Shotts, to the extent that he had surgery posters with “Airdrie and Shotts” on them? The regional area that he covers is, of course, much larger. I suspect that it was done for electoral reasons, with his being the SNP candidate for the Airdrie and Shotts Scottish parliamentary constituency.

Brian H Donohoe: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall return to that point.

Fiona O'Donnell: I can tell my hon. Friend that I barely slept last night waiting to make this intervention. Will he at least acknowledge that the current system came about as a result of a consultative process—the Scottish Constitutional Convention—which the Committee should respect?

Brian H Donohoe: My hon. Friend may not have slept last night, but what does she think of the fact that I have had to come back here to continue this debate? I will come back to her point later.

Mark Lazarowicz: I disagree with much of what my hon. Friend said yesterday and today, but I concede his point on the role of list MSPs. One list MSP in my area just produced her annual report. By some amazing coincidence, almost every single example of her local work over the last year happens to be from the constituency where she is standing as a constituency candidate.

Brian H Donohoe: On the basis of conversations with other hon. Members, there is universal agreement that something is fundamentally wrong with that aspect of list Members. Even a previous Presiding Officer has made that point on numerous occasions in the Scottish Parliament. That is a pertinent issue and it must be given serious consideration, which is why I have proposed new clause 2, which would withdraw funding. Withdrawing the funding available to added list Members would lead to significant savings for the Scottish Parliament. If my arithmetic is correct, there are 56 added list MSPs, given that 73 MSPs are elected for constituencies—I believe my figures are right on this occasion.

Mark Field: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, fundamentally, list Members are representatives only of their parties? In new clauses 1 and 2, he is seeking to reconnect MSPs with constituents. Under the first-past-the-post system, MSPs must recognise that they represent each and every one of their constituents, including—and in many ways more importantly—those who did not vote for them, which is in stark contrast to list Members.

Brian H Donohoe: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who is my MP, as he knows. I came into Parliament thinking that I was a Labour MP, but over the years I have come to understand that I represent not just Labour voters but 100% of my constituents, including those who vote and those who do not vote. I have always taken that view. The hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention, and I am grateful for it, but I do not know what it has to do with the subject in hand.
	If one accepts that list Members are not to make representations on behalf of individual constituents, the question is why do they advertise constituency surgeries? On one occasion, such a Member, who will remain nameless, advertised a surgery in my constituency. I was not very pleased, so I decided to look through all the files in my office—some 2,500 files—for some awkward cases. I decided I would phone those awkward cases and tell them that this individual was having a surgery in Irvine, and that they should attend because he made such a good MSP. Seventeen people trooped to his surgery, and he never did a surgery in Irvine again. That is the practical way to overcome the problem of added list Members in the Scottish Parliament. If anyone wants a wee bit of encouragement to do likewise, I am more than happy to oblige.

Angus MacNeil: I was wondering whether the awkward cases had already been sent to the hon. Gentleman.

Brian H Donohoe: No, I already had the awkward cases and knew all about them. Every single Member in this place—even those who came in last year—will be well aware of the cases that they would like to palm off. It might be that we could find a role for those list Members and send them all over the UK to take up these awkward cases. I might be one of those who would advocate that—but not today, because we are here to debate new clauses 1 and 2.
	My final point concerns what happens when a list Member dies in office. Of course, that is unfair on the individual, although they would no longer worry about it; but there is also an unfairness in the system, as we have seen—believe it or not—in Ayrshire: a Member of the Scottish Parliament resigned and a member of the constituency party was put in their place, but that Labour member was not elected and a Tory took their place. Had it been a list Member who resigned, however, under the list system the next person on the list would have been appointed as a Member of the Scottish Parliament.

Cathy Jamieson: To clarify, does my hon. Friend agree that it makes no sense that everything else in the Scottish Parliament is done by proportionality and d’Hondt? This is the one area where that does not seem to apply.

Brian H Donohoe: That is a discussion for another day, but it is a very pertinent point—and one that a lot of people do not understand. A lot of people do not understand this crazy list system. As I have said, if a constituency Member resigns, a by-election is triggered, and whatever happens the democratic process takes place. However, if a list Member dies, retires or resigns, they are replaced by somebody on the list, which is absolutely outrageous. The Labour party is concerned to have a gender balance, but this system destroys that possibility.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is making a compelling and fascinating case. He might be aware that when the Minister moved to Westminster, his replacement was simply appointed by the Tory apparatchiks without any democratic mandate.

Brian H Donohoe: I am sure that the Minister can speak for himself and tell us why he thinks that this aspect of the list system is fair. I shall wait to see whether he has a contribution to make on that point.

Mark Field: The same point applies to the London assembly, and it is slightly more serious even than he has pointed out. Certain roles, such as being a member of the London assembly, disbar a person from holding a dual mandate in Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, however, for list members of the London assembly, that change can take place without any difficulty, but for a first-past-the-post elected member—one of the 14 of the 25 in that category—there needs to be a separate election. I agree that it is a fundamental stupidity of the system that needs urgent reform, but it is not exclusively an issue for the Scottish Parliament.

Brian H Donohoe: I am extremely grateful to my Member of Parliament for raising that point. Of course it is a serious point and it has to be addressed, because it
	causes dissent and demonstrates that the list system in Scotland does not—and will not—work, and is not seen as fair.

Fiona O'Donnell: I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. I know that he would never be partisan, but surely he can see the benefit for the thousands of people in the highlands and islands region who vote for Labour candidates, and who, thanks to the system, have three excellent candidates in Peter Peacock, Rhoda Grant and David Stewart.

Brian H Donohoe: Well, I got one out of three, so I did not do too badly. I bet that if I asked the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) to name his seven list Members—or even the 24 in my constituency—he would be lucky to name three of them. But I will give way, if he is going to reel them off. [Interruption.] He has it on his website! That is a bit of a cheat, would you not say, Mr Hoyle? Anyway, I am coming to the end of my contribution, you will be glad to know.

Stewart Hosie: I am sorry that I was not in my place for the start of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, but I have been following most of it. I am unhappy about Members of the Scottish Parliament being named when they are not here to defend themselves. As for the three people mentioned by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether one, two or all three of them as list members also intend to stand in the first-past-the-post election? If so, that would pose a very interesting question.

Brian H Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman raises a pertinent point—one that my individual constituency voted on and came to a unanimous decision. I stress that this is on the basis of a vote only in my own constituency, but not a single person in the constituency party was in support of any added list members also standing for a particular constituency. I mentioned that earlier when I spoke about a person who came fourth in the first-past-the post election in my constituency finding herself in Parliament. That does not make sense, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would say that it made sense.
	Let me conclude. This is an important subject for the chattering classes, but it is not very important to the great bulk of people in Scotland—or, for that matter, anywhere in the United Kingdom. One thing is certain: electoral systems do not put food in bairns’ stomachs or jobs into the homes of people who most need them in order to put that food in bairns’ stomachs. I suggest that it is therefore more important for us to argue against and probe Ministers daily on the state of the economy. However, we are where we are; and we are debating what we are. That is why I thought it right to table these two new clauses for debate.
	I want fairness: it is something I came into politics for. I have always believed in fairness and I believe there is no doubt, as conceded in this debate, that there is no accountability for these list members. My two new clauses thus have considerable merit, but I shall listen carefully to how the debate continues.

Alan Reid: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) that I will not support his new clause. He ended by talking about fairness, but that goes to the hub of the debate. What is unfair about his system is that it would gerrymander the voting system in favour of one party—his own, the Labour party. It is an extremely unfair system. That is what the debate should be about, but the hon. Gentleman did not touch on that anywhere in his contribution.

Thomas Docherty: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s new-found passion for stopping gerrymandering. Will he remind us why he voted last week to give the Isle of Wight two seats?

Alan Reid: The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was—

Thomas Docherty: Gerrymandering.

Alan Reid: It was a product of the coalition agreement. I was in favour of the first part of the Bill; I did not like the second part, but we made a coalition agreement. The Liberal Democrats liked part 1; Conservative colleagues liked part 2, but not part 1: that is what compromise and coalition is all about.
	The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire also said that people did not consider the voting system to be important. People may not be aware of the intricacies of the voting system, but the people of Scotland overwhelmingly voted in the referendum for a proportional voting system, so that is important to them. It was endorsed by the Constitutional Convention, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, and then, as I say, by the people of Scotland in a referendum.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular problem with the party list system? Many advocates of proportional representation argue that it will make people more accountable. The experience of the system in Scotland, however, has been that some people can bounce backwards and forwards from being constituency MSPs to being top of their party list—and back again, or not—so the public has little chance of dislodging them unless the party does. Might there not be a better list system than the party list system?

Alan Reid: That is a fair point. I am fully in favour of proportional representation, but every electoral system can be improved. One way of improving this system would be to move from closed to open lists, which would give the electorate a choice. Another reform is also possible: if cherry-picking of constituencies by regional list Members is considered to be a problem, we can adopt the system in Wales whereby no one can stand both for a constituency and on the regional list. That would remove the problem of cherry-picking at a stroke, because there would be no advantage for a regional list Member in cherry-picking a particular constituency.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have already seen improvements, such as the removal from the list of the vanity party that was “Alex Salmond for First Minister”?

Alan Reid: That was certainly an important reform of the electoral system.

Angus MacNeil: Removing choice?

Alan Reid: If the SNP wants to call itself Alex Salmond for First Minister, it is perfectly entitled to do so. What it cannot do is confuse the electorate by having two names. One minute it is called the Scottish National party; the next minute it is called Alex Salmond for First Minister. If only SNP members would make up their minds on what they want their party to be called.

Michael Weir: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is very interesting. I seem to recall that his party registered the name “Ming Campbell’s Liberal Democrats”, but, surprisingly, did not use it at the general election.

Alan Reid: I think that the law was changed.
	I understand that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire chairs the all-party parliamentary group for the promotion of first past the post. He has continually extolled the virtues of the first-past-the-post system, but that is not my understanding of what his new clause actually means. I think that it would be more accurately described as promoting “first two past the post”.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at least the alternative vote gives true believers in first past the post an opportunity to practise it? They can use their votes only once if they want. They can write “1”, or “X”, and not use any subsequent numbers. It is possible to use first past the post under an AV system, but the reverse is not the case.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point.

Brian H Donohoe: I am going to have to accuse the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) of cherry-picking. He has read only part of my new clause. His problem can be solved by paragraph (b) of the new section (4A) proposed in subsection (6), which requires provision for
	“the two candidates with the most valid votes to be elected in such constituencies.”

Alan Reid: Exactly. The two candidates with the most votes are the first two past the post. That is not first past the post. I think that the hon. Gentleman is signalling “two” to me. I will assume that that is what his gesture means, Mr Hoyle.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) was signalling “first two past the post” and nothing more. I am reassured, am I not, Mr Donohoe? Yes.

Alan Reid: Thank you for that clarification, Mr Hoyle.
	In these constituencies two Members will be elected—the two who receive the most votes. That is not first past the post; it is first two past the post. I do not think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire understands his own new clause.

Graeme Morrice: My understanding of the system is that there are two candidates, and therefore two votes. Of course that is based on first past the post. It is not dissimilar to the system that applies to local government elections in England when there are several candidates for several seats within a multi-member ward and electors have several Xs to put on a ballot paper.

Alan Reid: That is correct. However, two Members are elected: the first two. That is not first past the post.
	The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire criticised the system for election to the Scottish Parliament in which the person who finished second in the constituency might still be elected on the list, but the same would apply under the strange system that he has come up with in the new clause.

Graeme Morrice: The hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. There would be two candidates—there could be two Labour candidates standing, or two Lib Dem, Tory or Scottish National party candidates—and the electors would have two votes. I would vote twice, and put down two crosses for two Labour candidates. There is not a second candidate, therefore; there are two firsts, and the electors have two votes—the two crosses.

Alan Reid: Yes, but some people might not vote for party tickets. This system is used in English local government elections, and it is very uncommon for the first two candidates to get exactly the same number of votes. One will finish first, and another will finish second, and sometimes where there is a close result candidates from different parties get elected.

Brian H Donohoe: Even under the first-two-past-the-post system, it is highly possible that if a party candidate is unpopular for any reason, the electorate will choose one candidate from one party and another from a different party.

Alan Reid: Yes, that is possible, but there would still be two people elected, and the hon. Gentleman objected to having more than one person representing a constituency. He expressed objections about regional list Members holding surgeries in his constituency, but under the system he proposes there will be two people representing every constituency, so there are the same possibilities for disagreements and people duplicating casework. I find it illogical that the hon. Gentleman extols the virtues of first past the post, but proposes a different system.
	The first-past-the-post or the first-two-past-the-post system could be very unfair. In the last Scottish Parliament election, the SNP got the most votes, and it rightly got the most seats. Let us consider what would have happened if we had adopted first past the post, however. In the constituency section, the SNP got 33% of the vote and Labour got 32%, but Labour won more than half the first-past-the-post seats—37 out of the 73 seats. Therefore, if we had purely been using a first-past-the-post system, even though the SNP was the clear winner of the election, the next morning we would have found we had a Labour Government with an overall majority, having more than half the seats.

Angus MacNeil: Disgraceful.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman takes the words out of my mouth: it would have been disgraceful gerrymandering if the first-past-the-post system had been adopted in that election, because in an election where the people voted for the SNP there would have been a Labour Government—and not just a minority Labour Government, but one with an overall majority. What is unfair about first past the post and first two past the post is that what counts is not the number of votes a party gets, but how they are distributed.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if we do the electoral calculations, it is clear that had the AV system been in operation for the Scottish Parliament, the Labour majority would have been even higher?

Alan Reid: There is no way of predicting what would have happened, because we do not know how people would have used their later preferences. The hon. Gentleman’s analysis is of interest, but I do not think we can make any such assumption.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, once again, the constitutional cuckoo, the SNP, has benefited from a system drawn up by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, with which it did not even engage?

Alan Reid: I was certainly disappointed that the SNP did not engage, but it benefited from a system that had widespread support throughout Scotland and was endorsed by the Scottish people in a referendum.

Angus MacNeil: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, and it is clearly game set and match against first past the post. In response to the point of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), does it not make the SNP victory all the better given that we won by a set of rules we did not even design?

Alan Reid: The SNP won because the election was fought on a fair set of rules—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give the Liberal Democrats credit for participating in the Constitutional Convention and arguing and negotiating with the Labour party to get a proportional system. If his party had not gone off in a huff and had instead taken part in the Constitutional Convention, we might have got an even better system. He should be thanking the Liberal Democrats for the efforts we made.
	The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was arguing that one of the flaws with the current system relates to the number of MSPs who can turn up at health board meetings in Ayrshire and Arran—he cited a figure of 24. We have had arithmetical disputes before, but I calculate that 26 MSPs could attend. I have good news for him because the Boundary Commission has drawn up the new boundaries for the next elections and only 19 MSPs will be able to turn up to those meetings. However, he does have a point, and if he looks at the Arbuthnott report, he will find where a solution lies.
	Sir John Arbuthnott’s report was set up by the previous Government to examine the problems of non-coterminosity. He proposed that we should make the regional list
	boundaries natural boundaries, rather than have the current unnatural boundaries. So, for example, the whole of Ayrshire would be covered by one regional list. There was a lot to be said for Sir John’s report. I did not agree with every part of the detail, but it was a pity that the previous Government did not take it more seriously. Importantly, the Arbuthnott commission said that when the overall result is proportional, it is less important that individual constituencies and individual regional lists all have the same number of electors than it is in a first-past-the-post system. As the final result will be proportional, it is less important for each constituency and list to be the same size. It would, thus, be better if the regional list boundaries for Scottish Parliament elections were drawn up first and constituencies were then fitted within the regional lists. That would allow us to get regional lists that are much closer to natural boundaries than the current system does.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the biggest problem, in a party sense, of not having coterminous boundaries is that there is no accountability in respect of the list members, and that cannot be overcome on the basis of what he has just proposed?

Alan Reid: If the boundaries for the lists were natural ones, we would have much more accountability. For example, Ayrshire could be put with Dumfries and Galloway to form one regional list and we could, thus, have a much more natural boundary in south-west Scotland than we have at the moment.

Ian Davidson: I am listening with interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is arguing that if we have natural boundaries for the regional seats, it does not matter what size the individual constituencies are because we would have fairness overall. Such an approach would be very much to the benefit of the party, as it is a very party-focused means of coming to an arrangement. The parties would be doing okay, but we could have an enormous discrepancy in the “share” that any individual voter has of an MSP. I could be in a seat where there are 100,000 electors, whereas Orkney has just 14,000 electors, and clearly it would be expected that the person with only 14,000 people to represent would provide a much better service.

Alan Reid: That is a fair point. I would not propose having constituencies with anywhere near as many as 100,000 electors. Off the top of my head, I recall that the average Scottish Parliament constituency has about 55,000 electors, so the figure used would be close to that. Having individual constituencies that represent natural communities would make the work of the individual MSP much easier, because they would be representing a natural community, rather than a constituency that crosses a council or health authority boundary.
	My preference would be to have the Parliament elected by the single transferable vote system in multi-Member constituencies—the same system that we use for local government. All MSPs would then be equal and we would not have the problem of conflict between constituency and regional list Members. I also outlined earlier how we could improve the present system. The important thing, however, is that we must have a
	proportional system in the Scottish Parliament. That is the only fair way for the whole of Scotland to be represented in the Parliament. It is what the Constitutional Convention agreed and what the Scottish people voted for in the referendum, so I urge the Committee to reject this backward-looking new clause and not to overturn the settled will of the Scottish people.

Pete Wishart: I do not think that anybody in this House can doubt the tenacity of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on this issue. In the course of the past 12 years or so, he has been absolutely consistent in his contempt for list Members of the Scottish Parliament and the whole concept of proportional representation. I am sure that what he says about there being a large constituency for his views is true and I certainly saw a lot of people nodding along with his speech. I want to explore the issue today to try to see what level of support there is for his views, particularly in the Labour party.
	The amendment was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and in the names of five of his hon. Friends—a substantial and significant amount of Scottish Labour Members. An awful lot of Scottish Labour Members support the notion that this House should dictate the membership and voting arrangements for the Scottish Parliament. He also says that there is more support in the Labour movement more widely. If that is the case, it alarms and shocks me and we should hear more about it. If a substantial minority—

Mark Lazarowicz: rose —

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) first.

Mark Lazarowicz: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) and I are going to make the same point. Arguments can be made—I hope to make them in a moment—against the exposition laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), but if the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is going to start playing the numbers game—we have had enough mathematics and arithmetic in the past hour or so—five out of 41 means just under one eighth of the Scottish Labour MPs, or less than 12.5%. Let us not overdo that argument.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful for that intervention, but it still seems an awful lot—almost an eighth, and there are six signatories. It also seems to me that the numbers are growing. I saw the heads nodding in agreement with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and I suggest and suspect that he has growing support. If he remains tenacious on this issue, his view might prevail in the Labour party. That is the direction in which things are going and that is what we are beginning to see.

Fiona O'Donnell: rose —

Pete Wishart: I think that we have heard this point; is it on the same issue?

Fiona O'Donnell: It is.

Pete Wishart: Oh, go on then.

Fiona O'Donnell: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the subject. If I might help him with the maths, the equivalent proportion of Scottish National party Members would be seven eighths of one MP.

Pete Wishart: We really are having arithmetic and mathematics lectures today.
	I think that the momentum is with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. Opinion is moving in the same direction as him and I think it is starting to go with him. I looked around and saw some of the enthusiasm from some of his hon. Friends this afternoon and I think the Labour party has a genuine problem. I have a solution, however, Mr Hoyle, in which you might be interested. I understand that the Labour party is holding an important conference this weekend, so the hon. Gentleman should get a day return—not the Caledonian sleeper—up to Oban and have this debate with the Labour party. The Scottish people need to know what the Labour party is doing.
	I believe that the Labour party is split from top to bottom on this issue and that has to be resolved. I know that up at Oban it will be the usual whinge-fest.

Graeme Morrice: The SNP has a preoccupation with the Labour party; why does not the hon. Gentleman simply address the issue?

Pete Wishart: I am offering a solution so that the issue can be resolved and fixed up once and for all. The Scottish people want to know what the Labour party thinks. Labour designed this mechanism; let us see what it thinks about it now.

Ian Davidson: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), should take a train to Oban. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is so up to date with current political affairs that he is unaware that the Labour party conference is in Glasgow. I would be grateful if he explained to us exactly how being in Oban would help my colleague to explain to his friends, meeting in Glasgow, why they should change their policy?

Pete Wishart: We are having a few difficulties with trains in this Committee. First there was the Caledonian sleeper and now there is this train to Oban. I will, of course, apologise to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. I say to him: “Take the train to Glasgow for goodness’ sake, but whatever you do, take that train, because we need to know the settled will of the Labour party in all this.” I suspect that the sentiment and views expressed by the hon. Gentleman are gaining currency in the Labour party—

Brian H Donohoe: And in the Tory party.

Pete Wishart: He says that—

Ian Davidson: And with the Liberals.

Pete Wishart: People are nodding their heads. I detect that this is becoming a real issue. Frankly, it scares and alarms me if that is the debate within the Labour party. Whether it is a substantial minority or a majority within the Labour party who feel this way, the Scottish people need to know about this. They need to be aware that this is the Labour party’s intention. These two new clauses are totally wrong and it is appalling if a substantial minority in the Labour party believe this is the way forward. They would remove one of the central pillars of the Scottish Parliament—its internal democracy. They would remove all the proportionality that has been agreed and is the settled will of the Scottish Parliament.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I have given way to the hon. Lady already, so I will move on.
	The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and many of his colleagues want to return to the good old days of the old Glasgow council, when 69 Labour members, out of 79, were elected on 48% of the vote. That is democracy Labour-style—90% of members on 40% of the vote. Thank goodness we will not be going back to that. People are saying that is right and that it is what they want and I believe that that underpins all these measures—the Labour party benefiting massively from first past the post.
	In the past few years, this issue has consistently come up. In the 10 years that I have been in the House, we have had these debates about Arbuthnott and other matters. We were told that we could not call the Scottish Government a Government and that we had to call them the Scottish Executive. I remember the days of the timid, unadventurous Labour Executive, always casting their eyes southwards to London, awaiting orders, instructions and directions about what to do, but those days have gone. We now have an SNP Government in Scotland and we will never again have the House of Commons clicking its fingers and the Scottish Parliament doing that dance. I look forward to that.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are moving completely off the new clause and I think we ought to get back to it. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been tempted by all the interventions, but we ought to stick to the new clause.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful, Mr Hoyle.
	I do not think that the signatories to the new clauses singularly loathe the additional member system—they also loathe the single transferable vote for local government in Scotland and everything to do with proportional representation.

Graeme Morrice: indicated assent.

Pete Wishart: That is their view. They want the death of PR in Scotland.
	A few interesting things came out of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire’s contribution, the most interesting of which was about list Members. I think he has to take this up with the Labour list Members in the highlands, in north-east Scotland and in mid-Scotland and Fife. I know that SNP list Members are particularly active within the larger constituencies and do a fantastic job.

Brian H Donohoe: I shall try to be as quick as possible. I did not touch on this in my speech, but does not the list Member have to notify the constituency Member before they come in on a case or make notification of it? In the 12 years of the Scottish Parliament, in Ayrshire there has not been a single case brought to the attention of a constituency Member.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman will have had his own experiences with these issues.
	An hon. Member has pointed out that there have been problems with list Members on a couple of occasions, but I am surprised that it is only a couple of occasions. List Members seem to co-exist with first-past-the-post Members on reasonably good terms. I recognise a number of issues and problems that have been identified by a number of Members.

Graeme Morrice: Further to my intervention earlier in the debate, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the situation of one Scottish National party MSP, Alex Neil, who was admonished by the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament for giving the impression, despite the fact that he is the regional list MSP for Central Scotland, that somehow he was a local constituency MSP for Airdrie and Shotts, which has its own directly elected constituency MSP?

Pete Wishart: It seems that the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to name others who cannot defend themselves in this House.
	As I said, I am astounded that there have been so few such issues. That case is probably notable because it has happened so rarely. First-past-the-post Members have co-existed with regional Members in a friendly and consensual way. That is a feature of the Scottish Parliament that will continue.
	The hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) is right. There are difficulties identifying Members of the Scottish Parliament. I find it difficult to recognise first-past-the-post Labour Members in the Scottish Parliament, particularly those on the Front Bench, and I think the Scottish people have great difficulty recognising a number of them, too.

Brian H Donohoe: Name the MSPs.

Pete Wishart: I will name one MSP with lofty ambitions. He has the ambition to be the First Minister of Scotland. When he went out there, we found that 50% of the Scottish people did not recognise him, and another 33% just did not like him.

Fiona O'Donnell: I wonder which party in Scotland the hon. Gentleman would say has the best record on constitutional reform—the parties in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Labour and Lib Dems who delivered STV for local government, or an SNP Government who could not even deliver a referendum.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is not relevant to the new clause either.

Pete Wishart: The point was well made. The voting mechanism was not designed by the SNP, but we still won, which was remarkable. We hear Labour Members of Parliament down here disparage and knock the
	current arrangements. Those are their arrangements. When the Liberals were arguing in the Scottish Constitutional Convention—hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong—they would probably have been arguing for STV. That would be the preferred option. AMS was Labour’s system, which the Liberals agreed with in order to ensure proportionality. For Labour Members to make such a fuss about AMS now is a bit rich, given that it is their system. Our preferred system, if the hon. Lady wants to know, is full single transferable vote. That is what we want for Scotland.

Michael Weir: Does my hon. Friend notice a pattern? I understand that the Labour Front-Bench team is in favour of AV for this place, but many Labour Back Benchers are not.

Pete Wishart: I am sure that Mr Hoyle would not allow me to be tempted into discussing AV, but the mess that Labour Members get into when dealing with voting arrangements dumbfounds me. They seem to be for and against AV, just as they seem to be for and against proportionality in the Scottish Parliament. They are split from top to bottom on both issues, and they will be found out when they are questioned on the subject in the next few weeks.

Thomas Docherty: I appreciate that as the SNP’s Chief Whip, the hon. Gentleman believes in absolute loyalty to a single position. It might help him to understand that we have a free vote on the issue because we believe in a broad consensus.

Pete Wishart: I am no longer the Chief Whip, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for promoting me back to that distinguished role. I look forward to the outcome of a free vote in the Labour party. It will be fascinating. We will pay keen attention to who supports the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire in all this. I hope they are true to their convictions—[Interruption.] Oh, it is not a free vote, we hear.

Lindsay Hoyle: Whether or not Labour Members have a free vote is not relevant to new clause 1. Let us get back to the new clause, and I am sure Mr Wishart would not want to keep repeating himself.

Pete Wishart: Indeed, Mr Hoyle. I hope I was not repeating myself, but I was interested in that free vote concept. I would love to have seen a free vote on the matter under discussion. I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will press the new clause to a Division so that we get an opportunity to see who is for and who is against. Labour is totally split on the issue, and the Scottish people need to see where the Labour party is in all this. We in the SNP will of course oppose the new clause, because we believe in fair votes and in the right of the Scottish Parliament to make its own decisions and arrangements on voting and membership. That is how normal, self-respecting Parliaments do their business.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am sure that you will be pleased to hear that I intend to address the new clause, Mr Hoyle.
	I want to put the case against what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has proposed, and to put the case for a system of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament. The current system should be retained. We could have an interesting academic argument about whether to have the additional Member system or a different form of PR, but AMS is the proportional system that we have now in the Scottish Parliament, and I want to defend that system. Overall, it has worked well, and it should be retained in the interests of Scotland.
	The first argument in favour of that system—or, indeed, any system of PR for the Scottish Parliament—is about fairness. I agree with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) on that. Some people seem to take the view that fairness is a luxury for politicians. I do not accept that—fairness is something that we should all be concerned about. Any system in which the seats that one party wins can be grossly disproportionate to the votes that it gets is an unfair system. We have seen some of those distorting effects at the UK level, but at the Scottish level the first-past-the-post system could have much more disproportionate effects, precisely because of the multi-party system in Scotland. We have four parties in Scotland which, according to the opinion polls, get 6% or more of the vote—if we were to add the Lib Dems and their 5%, we would have a five-party system. With that breakdown between the parties, it would be quite feasible for a party with just 30% of the vote to get an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament. Whatever our perspective might be, that cannot be justified or defended.
	Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends take the view that because—as they believe—Labour tends to gain under that disproportionate system, we should support first past the post against any form of proportional representation. However, I do not accept that first past the post always benefits the Labour party. I am old enough to remember the 18 years of Conservative Government, when the Conservatives, never with the majority of the votes cast, nevertheless had a majority of the seats in Westminster, and sometimes a very large majority, so Labour does not always gain from the first-past-the-post system.
	It would also be dangerous for my Labour colleagues or anyone else to assume that first past the post would always benefit Labour in Scotland. As the Liberal Democrats have discovered, no party can assume that its recent levels of support will be maintained indefinitely. Parties go up and down, and we cannot necessarily assume that if the Scottish Parliament had first past the post but no regional list system, the constituency votes in the last parliamentary elections would have been the same, because people might have chosen to vote differently if they had had only one vote instead of two. We cannot assume that Labour would always win an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament under first past the post.

Brian H Donohoe: Does my hon. Friend understand that the last time the Liberals were in power, which was in 1921, they were opposed to any form of proportional representation and voted in this place for the system that we have today?

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed. One thing that my hon. Friend and I share on this issue is consistency. He has been consistent in his opposition to PR; I have been consistent in my support for it, so at least we share something in this debate, unlike the Liberal Democrats.
	No party can assume that it knows what the vote will be in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, but the attraction—as my hon. Friends and others see it—of first past the post might diminish dramatically if, let us say, the Scottish National party at some stage got 35% of the votes in the Scottish parliamentary elections under that system. That could quite easily give it an absolute majority of seats, which no doubt the SNP would claim as a mandate for independence. Those who suggest that first past the post will always benefit Labour, or any other party, are making a serious mistake if they maintain that position.

Cathy Jamieson: So far the debate seems to have centred on what is best for the political parties. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the voting system we now have for local government, for example, is that people feel that they have lost the direct link with their elected representative? They prefer a system in which there is certainty; they know who to go to and do not feel that they are being passed from pillar to post.

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree. That is one reason why I do not support STV for the Scottish Parliament or local government, and I will come on to that point as it relates to the Scottish Parliament in a moment.
	We should bear in mind some of the arguments made in 1997—those of us who have been around for some time can remember them—on why it was important that there should be a vote on the system of PR in the referendum on the Scottish Parliament, rather than putting a first-past-the-post system to voters. That is precisely because it was recognised, even by some people who were hostile to or sceptical about PR, that if the electors had been offered a choice of a Scottish Parliament with a first-past-the-post system, some might have voted against it because they would be concerned that one party in one part of the country might at some future stage dominate the Parliament, which would have undermined support for the yes vote in the 1997 referendum.

Pete Wishart: Looking around the Chamber, I see four Labour Members who are against the hon. Gentleman and three who support him. Does he feel that in the Labour party he is beginning to lose the argument in favour of PR?

Mark Lazarowicz: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point—

Pete Wishart: There are four Members against him and three for him.

Mark Lazarowicz: I think that we are going down a road that will not take the argument much further forward.
	When the Constitutional Convention drew up the plans for a Scottish Parliament, there was a strong case that the Parliament should be elected by a system of PR, and there is certainly no case for changing that, even if we look at it simply from the narrow point of view of Labour’s party political advantage, which, as I have said, we should not do. It is also about how democracy can be improved and how the public relate to the political process, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) has said.
	If we accept that there should be some system of PR for the Scottish Parliament—I know that there are Members on both sides of the House who do not accept that—the obvious question is which PR system should be put in place. There is a wide range of PR systems, as there is a wide range of electoral systems generally, and there are arguments for and against all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has pointed out some of the disadvantages, and I agree with her about the STV system that currently operates in local government. Some council wards in my constituency, for example, now have 28,000 voters, and so local councillors are in no sense local in the way that they had been, and I presume that that is the case in her constituency.
	If we had an STV system for Scottish Parliament elections, Edinburgh would have four MPs for the entire area, but no local MPs. There might be two Labour Members, one Tory and one SNP, according to present opinion polls, but that would certainly not allow any of them to have a local affiliation in the parts of Edinburgh where there is a strong local identity, such as my constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith. STV would certainly not be the right answer. I do not think that anyone would seriously go for the complete proportional list system in which seats are allocated to parties simply on the basis of the number of votes received nationwide. That would give too much power to the parties, so no one would support that system. Therefore, the additional Member system, which combines the constituency element, so that people know who their local MSP is, and the top-up level, which balances out the disproportionate effects of the first-past-the-post system, is in my view the best compromise, which is why it should be maintained.
	There are certainly problems with how some list Members operate. I could refer to one Member in my region and the way in which she has presented herself in the run-up to Scottish Parliament elections, and other examples could undoubtedly be provided from across the country of MSPs from different parties acting that way.
	In my case, I have been fortunate, but by and large we have had no great problems of representation in working with list MSPs. There are times when we have political disagreements, but there are also times when we can work together in the interests of the area. Perhaps I have just been fortunate, but I do not think that there have been the dramatic difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire has suggested.
	For all those reasons, I see no case for changing the additional Member system for the Scottish Parliament, and I remind Members—with reference to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell)—that the system for election to the Scottish Parliament was not dreamed up out of thin air by someone in the Labour party; it was a product of a long period of discussion and consultation involving not just Labour and the Lib Dems, but the Greens and other small parties, and not just political parties, but local government, the trade unions and a wide range of civic Scotland. Together, they wanted to come up with a system that they felt would pass the test of time. The
	additional Member system is not perfect, but in my view it has worked relatively well. Some anomalies need to be addressed, but that does not mean that the entire system should be thrown out.
	I believe the Scottish Parliament has been a success, and it has been a success under the current electoral system. Clearly, I would rather there had not been an SNP minority Government for the past four years in Scotland, but the way for my hon. Friends and my party to change that position is not to change the voting system to suit what we believe is our short-term political gain, but to get a lot more votes, which is what I believe will happen on 5 May.

John Thurso: I rise briefly to reach out a cooling and, I hope, reassuring hand to the fevered brow of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) regarding his concerns about the comments made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe).
	Before I do that, I make one observation. I had the privilege of doing a great deal of the Committee and Report work in the other place on the original Scotland Bill, and I acknowledge that we made one mistake. We agreed to allow the Scottish Parliament itself to decide and work out the relationship and work loads between all the different MSPs, and that there should be equality between the list and the constituency. It should be the Parliament’s job to work that out, but it would have been helpful had we given it a steer at the beginning as to a better balance, because I recognise some of the comments about squatting, although the majority of list MSPs do an exceedingly good job and the system overall brings fairness and proportionality. In the other place, we lost a vote that my noble Friends—at that stage—put for an open-list system, which I would have preferred, but we ended up with a broadly fair system that has worked well and come of age.
	Now, let me reassure the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire regarding the comments of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who moved the new clause. The key is in his comments regarding history. First, he invoked the election of 1910, when 83% of Scots voted, as opposed to 2010, when only 64% did. Of course, he forgot to mention that we did not have universal suffrage at that point, and, indeed, that no women had the vote or could stand for Parliament. So, his first suggestion is, I think, that we should get rid of women from politics.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman’s new clause sets out “Two members” with “two votes” and two posts. Of course, we had that system in British politics for many years during the century before last, with some very interesting results, so there is nothing new there. Indeed, many people had two votes in different constituencies if they happened to have gone to Oxford or Cambridge.
	So, the clear direction of travel of the hon. Gentleman’s thinking is back to the future, and there are only two explanations for that. Either he is the last surviving relic of first-past-the-post-osaurus rex, or his contribution was a wonderful exercise in irony. I believe that he is a grandmaster in irony, and that explains the new clause.

Ian Davidson: It is true to say that the devolution settlement achieved at the time of the referendum represented the settled will of the Scottish people, but
	that does not mean that there can never be any further change of any kind. In our debates on the Bill, we have identified difficulties and we have tried to resolve them and to move things forward by making changes. On the question of the electoral system, we first have to ask whether there are any problems and, if there are, whether there is a solution.
	I believe that there are some difficulties with the existing system. For example, the public have never entirely understood how losers become winners. They see people standing for election in a constituency and losing, only to pop up as an MSP anyway. The situation is made far worse when some of those who lost pretend to be the MSP for the constituency in which they stood and were defeated. That was certainly the case for a considerable number of years in Glasgow Pollok, where Johann Lamont was elected by first past the post. Kenny Gibson, from the SNP, who came second, then pretended to be the local MSP. Tommy Sheridan, from the horizontal road to socialism party, who is now detained elsewhere, also pretended to be the MSP for that constituency. That was undoubtedly unhelpful, because different people would turn up at local meetings, events, protests and campaigns pretending to be the MSP. This is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed.
	We have already heard the outrageous story of Alex Neil printing posters saying that he was the MSP for Airdrie and Shotts when patently he was not. That was a deliberate attempt to deceive the electorate. The fact that there is an election coming up in the near future can only be coincidence, but that was none the less a deliberate attempt to deceive. We also had a situation in the Govan constituency, the one beside mine, where Nicola Sturgeon camped out. She has now won that seat, but she did so partly because she had pretended to be the list MSP for that constituency. These are all clear difficulties in the present system and they need to be looked at.
	Related to that problem is the cherry-picking not just of issues but of individual items of casework, especially in relation to immigration cases but to others as well. As an MP, I have had a string of cases in which MSPs have taken up people’s complaints about immigration, told them that they could do something about it, led them down a path that led nowhere at all, then told them to come and see me. By that time, a considerable period had passed and some of the people had consulted lawyers based on what they had been mis-told. The same thing has happened with social security cases. We need a change in the rules that would stop list MSPs, in particular, cherry-picking.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman has listed certain instances of transgressions by SNP regional list Members. What is the Labour party doing?

Ian Davidson: My understanding is that list Labour MSPs are perfect in every way and have done nothing incorrect or outside the rules. I presume that there are no examples of Labour MSPs misbehaving in such a way; otherwise, we would have heard about them. The fact that the SNP has not raised a single example of a Labour MSP doing anything untoward is an indication of where the balance of advantage in this argument lies.
	A further difficulty with the existing system is the way in which getting on the list is so key to success in the proportional representation section of the ballot.
	That means that the party machine, which controls access to the list, has a much greater say than the electorate in who goes to the Scottish Parliament, because the electorate can only vote for the list—they have no say in who is on it. The loyalty of those who are on the list must therefore be directed not towards the electorate but towards their party managers; otherwise, they run the risk of being put off the list next time.

Mark Lazarowicz: I do not quite see the strength of my hon. Friend’s argument. In the Labour party, the members choose the ranking of people on the list, but they choose the candidates for first-past-the-post seats as well, so I am not sure how the party is given more power in one situation than in the other. Earlier, he highlighted various deficiencies in the list system, and he may be right. However, those may be arguments for changing the additional member system, but surely not for getting rid of it entirely.

Ian Davidson: Let me come on to that. At the moment, I am identifying particular difficulties. My hon. Friend perhaps misunderstands my point about the allegiance of people on the list. He is absolutely right that, certainly in the Labour party, it is the membership who determine someone’s place on the list. However, it is often the party hierarchy who determine whether that person enters the ballot to decide whether they are placed on the list, so it is about how that is handled. Increasingly, party managers have had a tendency to try to control who is on that list.

Michael Weir: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he clarify how someone in the Labour party can get to the stage of being able to stand for any seat whatsoever? Surely he would have to be approved by the party in some way before he is allowed to go forward for a seat. I am struggling to see the difference.

Ian Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously struggling to see the difference because he is unaware of the extent to which the Labour party’s internal democratic mechanisms are a wonder to behold. I do not necessarily see why I should share in private grief.

Alan Reid: I do not want to bring back memories for the hon. Gentleman, but did not his party hierarchy stop him standing as a constituency MSP?

Ian Davidson: Indeed it did. I can think of several other Members of Parliament here today who were prevented from standing for the Scottish Parliament candidates list. That was in the days when new Labour was at its most sectarian. Fortunately, we have moved on, and that is to be welcomed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct—that was a difficulty. The Labour party’s initial lists were drawn up in a sectarian fashion, and therefore a lot of people who would otherwise have been considered suitable for consideration by the party membership were unable to come forward.
	Another difficulty about the existing system is the way in which vacancies are filled. It is absurd that when somebody on the list stands down, disappears, passes away or decides that they want to do something else, the person who gets that place is simply the next one on the list. There is no vote and the public are not involved in
	any way, unlike the situation for individual constituency Members. That is inappropriate and a fault in the system.

Angus MacNeil: Is not the point of that process to retain the proportionality in the Parliament that was established by the voters at the election?

Ian Davidson: That is a natural result of the system—I understand that—but that is what I am unhappy about. It does not seem fair or reasonable that at some point after the election, during the term of the Scottish Parliament, somebody who is not an MSP should, as if by magic, become an MSP without the involvement of the electorate in any way.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman think it in any way important, then, that the proportionality expressed by the electorate is maintained in the Parliament?

Ian Davidson: These are difficult issues. I accept that that is a valid point, but I am unhappy about the idea that by-elections do not take place. By-elections are an important way of telling us what the public think at any particular moment. I do not know whether people present are aware of what happened recently in Barnsley, which was enormously significant.

Angus MacNeil: Remind us.

Ian Davidson: Okay. The party that had been second at the general election was not second, and it did not win the seat.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not quite sure what is the relevance of Barnsley. The Committee is well aware of the Barnsley result without Mr Davidson going into further detail.

Ian Davidson: I accept that decision, although I regret it because this is an important point. Its relevance is that, if there were a vacancy in the Scottish Parliament, under the existing system there would be a by-election, as in Barnsley, if it was a first-past-the-post seat, but not one if it was a list seat. The electorate in a constituency that I will not name had a way of telling the country what they thought of the Liberals. I think that that was important. We are much better and wiser for knowing that. I will not say the position in which the Liberals came, and I will not say what would have happened if the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party or the Welsh nationalists had stood. [ Interruption. ] They would have come ninth if they were lucky, and that is assuming that the Social Democratic and Labour party did not stand. I understand that they might well have been beaten by the 1st Barnsley Girl Guides and the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band had their candidates stood, but I must move on. The point is that by-elections allow people to express a view as progress is made throughout the term of a Government. The existing system does not allow that.
	It is important in a democracy that the electorate can get rid of people. I have a list here of people whom I would quite like to get rid of. However, it will be impossible to get rid of Nicola Sturgeon, for example, at the forthcoming election. She is standing in her constituency as the first-past-the-post candidate and she is at the top of the SNP list. Unless the party gets no
	votes at all, she will be returned. She does not need to turn up, because she is going to be elected. That seems fundamentally unfair and unreasonable.

Michael Weir: On that basis, will the hon. Gentleman call on Sarah Boyack in Edinburgh Central or David Stewart in Inverness and Nairn to stand down, because they are in exactly the same position?

Ian Davidson: I am perfectly happy to say that I want the system to change so that no party can do that. The hon. Gentleman’s question is a bit like asking somebody whether they are in favour of electricity being privatised, and if they say no, asking why they do not use candles. We operate in the world that exists. Although one might not have wanted a change to happen, one must accommodate the new position once it has. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for Labour candidates to stand in whichever way is appropriate. That does not stop us saying that the system ought to be changed.
	The question is whether the solution that is proposed is right. It has some merits, such as establishing a clear link between individual voters and the people who are elected in their constituency. I have some reservations about having two Members per constituency. I can see how that proposal has come forward for administrative convenience. I can see the merit of splitting each Westminster constituency either north to south or east to west, so that each person is represented by only one MSP and one MP.
	I can also see the merit—I am disappointed that this has not come up before—of seeking gender balance, by having two votes for each Westminster constituency, with one for a man and one for a woman. The Scottish Parliament lacks the gender balance that is desirable. In the first selection of candidates for the Scottish Parliament, the Labour party chose to twin the first-past-the-post constituencies so that one man and one woman would be selected. In the list, men and women were put alternately. With individual reselections and so on, that practice has lapsed a bit. However, I think that we were the only party to do something like that. The lack of women representatives in the other parties is a major deficiency. Changing the system would be advantageous in that regard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) mentioned voter confusion. The system of having two Members per constituency, however they were provided, would avoid the situation of 25 or 28 MSPs turning up to meet the health board. That is an absurdity. It is grossly inefficient and simply serves to muddy the waters. We should therefore consider changes and a better way.
	It is often argued that proportional representation encourages more people to vote. In fact, the UK voting system that is most proportional is for elections to the European Parliament, which have the lowest turnout. The next most proportional is the local authority system, which has the second lowest turnout. Then come the Scottish elections, for which there is an element of first past the post, which have the second highest turnout. The highest turnout is for elections to Westminster, which are the least proportional, so there is a clear correlation between first past the post and electoral turnout.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Ian Davidson: Those facts help my case, so I am quite happy to take interventions on that point.

Angus MacNeil: I fear that the hon. Gentleman might be confusing cause and effect. Surely turnout is more about the media attention given to whatever election happens to be occurring. The European elections get the least media attention, if any at all.

Ian Davidson: Well, that is one man’s point of view.

Michael Crockart: If the hon. Gentleman’s argument were correct, surely local government elections would have had immensely large turnouts when first past the post was used for them, and the turnout would have dipped immensely when they changed to the single transferrable vote. That was obviously not the case—there were poor turnouts before the change.

Ian Davidson: Turnouts have dipped since the change to proportional representation, as I understand it. The situation seems quite clear.

Alan Reid: The numbers went down, but that has nothing to do with the change to the voting system. The elections are on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections, so the turnout in those elections effectively determines the local government turnout.

Ian Davidson: Is it not interesting that in debates about changing the voting system we were always told that changing to a proportional system would boost the turnout? In fact, if anything, the reverse is true. I accept much of the argument made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) about media coverage, and I recognise that the situation is more complex, but those who argued for proportional representation never made that point. They suggested a clear correlation that has been demonstrated to be untrue.

Graeme Morrice: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the general election in May, turnout under first past the post increased by about 4%? It is going in the right direction.

Ian Davidson: That is an excellent point, and I am glad that it has been made.

Pete Wishart: On a point of clarification about the supremacy of first past the post, as the hon. Gentleman would have it, is he saying that no other electoral system throughout the world brings out a greater number of voters for a national general election?

Ian Davidson: I will not say that, because I suspect hon. Members could cite the case of Albania or somewhere similar. However, in our case it seems pretty clear that there is a correlation between turnout and the simplicity and comprehensibility of first past the post.
	Let us not confuse ourselves about how the system that we have in the Scottish Parliament came about. It was not on tablets of stone brought down from the mountain by Moses; it came from a backroom deal between the leaderships of the Labour party and the Liberals to ensure that they had a majority. That is no more than has happened between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the coalition. It is a shabby deal which,
	as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said, involves compromises. Let us not sanctify the electoral system with a false impression that a popular uprising demanded it.

Pete Wishart: AMS was Labour’s preferred system at the constitutional convention. What is interesting about the hon. Gentleman’s remarks—I hope he will come to this point—is that he believes that this place should dictate to the Scottish Parliament the ending of the current voting arrangements and the existence of regional Members. Would he like to impose an end to proportional representation on the Scottish Parliament?

Ian Davidson: I havenae decided what is the best system. I have outlined faults in the existing system. Do I believe that this House has the right to decide the voting system for the Scottish Parliament? Yes, I do, actually.

Pete Wishart: You think it should?

Ian Davidson: Yes, I think it should, in exactly the same way that the Scottish Parliament decided the voting system for local authorities without any discussion or agreement. If the Scottish Parliament is to be allowed to decide its voting system, so should local authorities. It is good enough for the SNP and its allies to impose a system on others, and what goes around comes around.

Angus MacNeil: May I tempt the hon. Gentleman, who I know is a committed Europhile, to extend that logic? If the Scottish Parliament foists a system on local government, and if the UK Government foist a system on the Scottish Parliament, would he want the European Parliament to foist an electoral system on the House of Commons?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is a temptation, but this is about the abolition of regional Members. We are in danger of being dragged around Europe, Scotland and the UK, so I think we should get back to new clause 1.

Ian Davidson: A very bad boy was trying to tempt me down the highway, Mr Hoyle. Earlier, I heard an SNP Member shouting that they wanted Scotland to join the euro as soon as possible, but that is nothing to do with this debate either, and I therefore do not intend to bring it up.
	The deal was a backroom deal and the old politics, in exactly the same way as the coalition was the old politics. Just as the Liberals were bought off for the Scottish Parliament, so they have been bought off with the promise of AV for this Parliament. I noticed yesterday a whole string of Liberals wearing “Yes to AV” badges. I will not mention that now, but come back to it in a later debate—

Mark Lazarowicz: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are going to discuss the abolition of regional Members. We are not going to be dragged back or come back to that other matter later; we will stick to new clause 1. We need to make progress. I think Mark Lazarowicz was about to intervene on you, Mr Davidson. Are you giving way?

Ian Davidson: Yes.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I shall certainly not tempt him off the straight and narrow. On how the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament was adopted, the fine details were a result of detailed discussion within the Constitutional Convention. Surely my hon. Friend accepts that the final system was endorsed by the electorate. The principle of having a proportional system for the Scottish Parliament was worked out at length through debate and consultation—it was certainly not the product of a backroom deal, but the product of many months of discussion and public consultation. As he knows, the Labour party conference voted 2:1 in favour of the final deal after the final agreement between the parties in the convention.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We do not need reports on the Labour party conference, so I think we will get back to new clause 1.

Ian Davidson: None the less, my hon. Friend’s point relates to whether it is possible, without inviting thunderbolts from on high, to consider changes to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. It seems to me that that is desirable. We regularly examine other elements of the Scottish Parliament and aspects of devolution—I remind hon. Members that devolution is a moving feast and not static—and so we should examine the electoral system.
	I do not intend to vote for new clauses 1 and 2, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, because I am not convinced that his proposals are the correct way forward. However, there is something wrong with the existing system, and it needs to be changed.

Michael Connarty: Anyone who looks at the amendment paper will see that I am a signatory to new clauses 1 and 2. We have had the knockabout stuff about whether this Parliament has or has not the right to decide the structure of the Scottish parliamentary electoral system or indeed its membership, but people were perfectly happy for this Parliament to overturn the Scotland Act 1998 at the first time of calling, by increasing the number of Members to 129, when the Act originally said that we would drop to a reasonable number after the initial period. The argument was made that people in the Scottish Parliament thought they needed 129 Members to take up all of the one and a half days in which they actually debated in their Chamber, and to ensure that enough people turned up at 5 o’clock every Wednesday to vote to make sure they got the tick in the box.
	It never made sense to me, but we allowed that change; Parliament was perfectly happy to change it. I believe that Members of all the parties with Members in Scotland were happy to go along with that process. If it was good enough then, it is certainly good enough now to consider whether the system in place for proportional representation—with its list Members—is the correct way to proceed. I am sure that some, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), would like to proceed to a totally proportional system. I believe that that has always been his bent; the single transferrable vote has always been his choice of political electoral system.
	As far as I am concerned, however, we need to consider whether the system we have works, or whether what has been proposed is a better system. Many people in my constituency, and those I have talked to in other constituencies—even those represented by Scottish National party Members—believe that there is a great deal of confusion in the system at the moment. The person who stands against the constituency Member they vote for often ends up elected under the regional system, having been defeated by the choice of the electorate under the first-past-the-post system. It is right that people should be able to choose. I think that the best system would provide for two MSPs in the constituencies of MPs in this place, and if Parliament wishes to remain with 129 Members—or whatever—it should put in place a top-up system chosen by the parties, because that is what it is about; we should let the parties choose people to be their central representation and then to top up.
	We discussed this matter here when we set up the system, and in the Scottish Constitutional Convention before the system was proposed. At that time, the argument was that there would be fewer Members who would deal with central policy matters and act as a group in Parliament, not shadow Members scurrying about trying to build credibility by snatching cases from MPs, councillors and the MSPs elected under the first-past-the-post system, in the hope that they can build enough credibility to challenge that Member at the next ballot, which is what is happening. It is not giving people good representation, and it is not giving them the benefits of a proportional system in the Chamber that can be seen in many of the European countries I have travelled to during my time on the European Scrutiny Committee. In those countries, parties act as central blocks in Parliament, working up policy, arguing in the Chamber, sitting on committees and proposing policy innovations, not running around the country tripping over everyone’s feet trying to win local votes.

Angus MacNeil: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman underestimates voters and the public when he says that they have difficulty distinguishing between list Members, who might have stood and lost, and those who have won on a constituency basis. I have not come across anyone who has had any difficulty understanding the process.

Michael Connarty: I would not want to accuse the hon. Gentleman of trying to distort my words; I just think he might not be swift enough to understand them. I said that people resent it. They know that they did not choose the Member who lost under first past the post, and they are not happy that that person then turns up as a list Member. They believe it is important that when they make a choice under first past the post, they choose between candidate A and candidate B. I take the point made earlier that every party does it, but it is wrong because it distorts the will of the electorate.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that several of his colleagues have made about people who lose under first past the post and come back on the list. However, does he not accept that it is a different electorate? Regional seats have seven or eight first-past-the-post seats in it, so they are not being elected by the same electorate. I do not understand his objection.

Michael Connarty: The point is that when the electorate then see that person’s behaviour in the list system, they are puzzled. I give the example of the Lothian Members, who are centred mainly in the city of Edinburgh. Where do the SNP list Members have their office? They have it in a little village called Whitburn in my constituency—well out of the city centre and the locale near the Parliament. That might have something to do with the fact that every time we have an election, the person who loses for the SNP stands against my MSP under first past the post, and that constituency happens to cover the village of Whitburn and areas in West Lothian. That clearly distorts not only the electoral system but the use of resources allocated to list Members, basically to try to back up the challenge under first past the post. New clause 1 would remove that problem by providing for two Members for each MP seat—it could be split in half or done some other way. That would give people the sort of representation that they like.
	I have no doubt that colleagues in all the political parties in Scotland believe that when people come to see them, they know that they are their representatives and that they are accountable to those people. In the Scottish parliamentary system, however, people do not really know because of the number of layers involved. They might go to the list Member, and if they get nothing there they will try the first-past-the-post Member and vice versa. The list Member might first back up the person and then take a different view. Then it might come to seeing the Member of Parliament to find out whether they will back them up.

Graeme Morrice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents a constituency in the local authority area where I have a constituency. I certainly share his views and concerns on this matter and I empathise with his viewpoint. Does he agree, however, that the real problem is the absolute confusion among the electorate about the difference between constituency MSPs and regional list MSPs? Within Scotland, possibly 99% of the electorate, if asked, would not know who all their regional list MSPs were.

Michael Connarty: That is an easy question to answer. It is quite clear that most people in this Chamber, if asked to list them, would not know all the regional list MSPs in their area. That is not the way I like to see the issue, however. It is not so much about confusion among the electorate; it is more that the electorate are not well represented. It is not because they are confused, but because the system invites certain behaviours that run counter to good representation. People do not know who is accountable to them and it is quite clear that list members are not accountable to the electorate. They are accountable to their party, because it is the party that puts them on the list and into the system.

Angus MacNeil: rose —

Michael Connarty: I am not giving way yet.
	If this is about the electorate—I hope it is, rather than about the manipulation of party machinery—it is important that the electorate know who is representing them. The system at the moment is not clear—indeed, it is deliberately confusing for the electorate. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the electorate; it is a matter of how all the political parties use the list system. We should genuinely consider moving to a system that
	can be recommended for its clarity. Having two constituency Members for the Scottish Parliament and one Member for this Parliament would be correct and clear, and people would like it.
	What has happened is that people in this place do not care whether the electorate like it or not. This is the key point: they do not treat the electorate properly. I have to say that the SNP argument is completely flawed. It has nothing to do with whether SNP Members respect the electorate; it is about whether their party can get an advantage out of it. It is the same with all minority parties. If my party acts in the same way, it is equally wrong. I therefore believe that new clause 1 deserves serious consideration and support. If parties want to top up to a certain number because they cannot run the place without 129 Members, that is where the additional Members should come from. We should call these people what they are—party-nominated Members. That is what happens in Germany: people are nominated by their parties to appear on the list to stand for Parliament or for the European Parliament. People are clear about what they are getting, but what they are not getting is representation.
	On new clause 2, the use of resources must be controlled in some way. In Scotland, people are running party machinery in constituencies using the list system resources. To have an office in Whitburn, someone should be representing all the Lothians. For that office to be used only for one Member who is trying to become the first-past-the-post Member for the Linlithgow constituency is the wrong use of resources—and we must find some way of controlling that.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman makes that allegation, so can he confirm that this is a parliamentary office for list Members and not a party office?

Michael Connarty: My understanding is that it is an office used by the Member of the Scottish Parliament, who happens to be the person who keeps standing for election to the constituency under first past the post. That may be coincidental; it may be that it is so difficult for the other Lothian Members to get public transport from the centre of the city to the office that they use it solely as a telephone base.
	It is important for us to bear in mind the aspiration of the House of Commons that list Members should represent a party that will use them in a way that bolsters the process in the Parliament, rather than shattering and scattering them throughout Scotland and sending them scurrying after votes in the hope that they might at some point secure a first-past-the-post seat, or perhaps secure some proportional extra seats for their party by being seen to be more active. That is not the vision that I was sold in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, it is not the vision that was presented here, and it is not the vision conveyed to me by Scottish National party members at that time. Why are SNP members now willing to accept a second-class option rather than delivering what we promised to the people of Scotland?

Stewart Hosie: I asked a simple question. I will repeat it. Is that office a list parliamentary office paid for with parliamentary resources to enable list Members to do their parliamentary work, and is it within the region to which they are elected?

Michael Connarty: The arrangement is perfectly legal under the present system. I am saying that the system should be more constrained and more disciplined, and that the resources should be more focused. I believe that the public are questioning why the office is there, what its purpose is, and whether it constitutes a distortion of what is due to them, the electorate. I keep returning to this point. What did we promise the electorate? What we promised them we have not delivered, and we should therefore consider doing something better. The new clauses represent serious challenges to the existing system, and should be treated as such.

Pete Wishart: Notwithstanding the fact that AMS was the Labour solution in the Constitutional Convention, there is another elegant solution to deal with a number of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Under STV, there would not be two distinct categories of Members of the Scottish Parliament. However, I presume that he wishes to end proportionality and return to Labour fiefdoms such as Glasgow council, 90% of whose members received 40% of the votes. Is that what he wants?

Michael Connarty: I should like Glasgow city council—which is a wonderful council—to be properly resourced, rather than having its budget cut by 3.7%. That is what the Scottish Government have just done, at a time when the city needs more resources. Other areas with a large proportion of SNP councillors are experiencing very small cuts. That is another abuse for which the people will take the Government of Scotland to task, and will take the SNP to task in particular.
	Proportionality has not worked in our system. I do not approve of the single transferable vote. I do not believe in that kind of proportionality, because I think that it moves so far away from the idea of accountability that the public reject it, and I do not think that we will get very far with any other amendment that appears to distort what we have in the House of Commons at present. When a Member of Parliament is elected, he or she is accountable. People know whom they elected, why they elected them, and how to get rid of them. If we cannot introduce a system that provides some credibility, the Scottish Parliament will go spinning off into the future with no credibility at all. I therefore hope that the Committee will pass new clauses 1 and 2.

David Mundell: I welcome you back to the chair, Ms Primarolo. I hope that, unlike the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), you did not have a sleepless night in anticipation of the debate. Given the level of interest that has been expressed, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has clearly done the Committee a service by promoting a debate on these issues.
	Let me say at the outset that the Government will not support the new clauses, principally because we believe that a fundamental part of the devolution settlement that was voted for in the 1997 referendum was the agreement that the Scottish Parliament should be elected on a proportional basis. There is a range of debates to be had on issues relating to proportionality, and some of those issues have emerged this afternoon, but it is clear that a fundamental aspect of the Scottish Parliament is that it is a proportionally elected institution.
	I must confess that during my time in the Scottish Parliament I was a regional list Member. Therefore, I must defend that cadre. Many Members from all the main political parties in Scotland have served with distinction as regional list Members, including Peter Peacock, who served on the Scotland Bill Committee, and Lord Foulkes, who was mentioned in our debate yesterday. We should not accept any general diminution of their contribution to the Scottish Parliament, as they have played their roles.
	It was clear from the start of the Parliament that the role of list Members had not been fully thought through. I was interested to hear it suggested earlier in our debate that there had been a vision for the role of list Members in 1999, because when the Scottish Parliament convened it was not clear that there was a specific job description. Over time, that role has emerged. There have been various initiatives to set out the responsibilities of constituency and list Members, including the Reid principles of the former presiding officer, George Reid.
	The Government believe that the Scottish Parliament should regulate the relationships between Members of the Scottish Parliament, and that it is not appropriate for this Parliament to regulate those arrangements. That is why we cannot support new clause 2, which seeks for this Parliament to set the financial constraints to be placed on Members who do not abide by such rules. An example was cited of a regional Member of the Scottish Parliament who is said to have breached the rules, but it can also be said that a process was followed, a complaint was made, and the presiding officer has dealt with it, and that therefore there is no evidence to support the view that the Scottish Parliament is not capable of making its own rules and arrangements for the regulation of MSPs.
	I was interested in many of the comments about Members standing on both regional lists and in constituencies, and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) highlighted a number of examples from within the Labour party. In 2006, I witnessed the passage of the Government of Wales Bill, when the then Labour Government argued that legislation must be put in place in Wales to prohibit candidates standing both on the list and in constituencies. Interestingly, such proposals were never brought forward in relation to Scotland, and shortly thereafter Labour changed its internal party rules to allow the same candidate to stand both on the list and for a constituency. We now see that a number of sitting MSPs are moving to stand on the list, so if they fail to be re-elected by one route, they have every chance of being re-elected on the regional list.

Stewart Hosie: Is that not the argument that was being used earlier: that losers can become winners? Why would a Labour Member make that case, when the Minister is explaining that that is precisely what the Labour party is now doing?

David Mundell: Well, I find it—

Brian H Donohoe: May I make it perfectly clear that I am opposed to the position referred to by the hon. Member
	for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), as is my constituency party and as are many other constituency parties across Scotland?

David Mundell: I fully take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I praise his consistency on this issue, but others who have been critical of the regional list system now want to use it to save their political careers, and I regard that as hypocrisy.

Michael Weir: I count six Labour MSPs now standing for the list who are currently first-past-the-post Members, which says something about their confidence in the result of the coming election.

David Mundell: As has been said, there has been a change from the view that Members should not stand on both the list and in constituencies to a position where that should be done when it is in someone’s self-interest.

Tom Harris: I apologise for not being here for the debate before now, but I wish to clarify one matter. I hope the Minister will recall that in the first Scottish Parliament elections Donald Dewar stood as a candidate for Anniesland, in addition to being No. 1 on the Glasgow list. A number of prominent first-past-the-post candidates also stood on the list, so this is not a new procedure in the Labour party—it has been going on since 1999.

David Mundell: As I recall, the reason given for Labour Members taking that approach was that they were encouraging people to vote on the list; they were seeking to demonstrate that prominent people were on the list and so it was an important vote in which to participate.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Minister remind us whether there are any Conservative list MSPs standing for a first-past-the-post seat in the forthcoming elections?

David Mundell: Indeed there are, but the Conservative party has been clear and absolutely consistent in its policy. It has not changed its policy to suit the electoral needs of individual constituency MSPs who fear for their future.

Pete Wishart: The Minister rightly says that the Conservatives have been consistent about this—the list has saved the neck of the Conservative party in Scotland. Has he any idea what the Labour Front-Bench team’s position is on this matter? We have not heard a contribution from Labour Front Benchers on this; all we have heard are the siren voices of the “first-past-the-posters” at the back. Labour seems to be split from top to bottom on this issue, but does the Minister have any idea as to its view?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman probably shares my belief that the Labour party view will be what is in the interests of the Labour party, and not necessarily what is in the interests of the electorate in individual constituencies in Scotland.

Michael Connarty: I am glad that the Minister gave way after that terrible slur on the Labour party. We are talking about the views of Members of this House, and
	it is very important that we take them seriously and do not start messing around. It is clear that the parties had a view. I recall Donald Dewar saying that the idea was that, as in Germany, the leader of the list would be seen as a symbol of what the list stood for. All the arrangements were proportional in Germany, but because we had this divergence between the first-past-the-post and list systems, our arrangements became totally confused in the eyes of the electorate. We are not seeking party advantage; we are looking for the electorate’s advantage.

David Mundell: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s consistency on this issue, but I was confused by one of the contributions from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who was part of a Labour-led Scottish Government who introduced the single transferable vote into local government in Scotland. Much of the argument that I have heard today did not provide evidence that that was done on the basis of support from within the Labour party. As one Member on the Opposition Benches pointed out, it was also done without consulting people across Scotland. On the point that the hon. Lady did raise, may I say, for information purposes, that when a council by-election is required, the STV system used does not guarantee ongoing proportionality? One of the problems with STV systems is that by-elections are difficult and complex matters.

Ian Davidson: A moment ago, Mr Kettle accused members of the Labour party of coming to a position based on self-interest. Given that he is in an alliance with another bad lot to promote an alternative vote referendum, despite neither party preferring AV as an electoral system, it can hardly be said that other people are pursuing their self-interest in this matter. Might I add that, to be fair, the Liberals welcome AV, because they predict that they will have a better result than they achieved in Barnsley and will at least come second in the referendum?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I add that I would like the Minister to return to discussing the new clause?

David Mundell: Thank you, Ms Primarolo. I will take on board what you say and, as ever, I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Some of what he said in his contribution was helpful, in that there is an acceptance, following the Arbuthnott commission’s report, that some form of review of electoral systems in Scotland is required. The Arbuthnott commission suggested that that should take place post-2011, and the Government share that view.

Brian H Donohoe: I am sure that the Minister will concede that nothing I am proposing today would come into effect until after this year’s elections.

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman has proposed a very specific change to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. It would mean that two Members would be elected from each constituency other than the three constituencies that have been identified. Although it seems to suggest that everyone would have two votes in those three constituencies, the new clause does not appear to show what would happen to the second of
	their votes. He has set out his intentions in this debate, but the provisions are technically defective. However, I advise him, and the Opposition Members who have expressed clear views about how they would change the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, to take part in any review that is forthcoming on the nature of that electoral system. That is one basis on which the Government reject the new clauses.

Cathy Jamieson: I am listening to the Minister with interest. Is he actually offering that very review that he is talking about? If so, when will it take place?

David Mundell: The date of the next Scottish Parliament election has changed as a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the Government have indicated that a review of the implications for the Scottish Parliament will be required. A review of the voting system for the Scottish Parliament elections could form part of a wider review of issues relating to the Scottish Parliament.

Ian Davidson: May I just clarify a point? The Minister said that the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) is not clear on the question of what would happen in respect of people having two votes. May I refer him to the wording? New clause 1 states:
	“each elector to cast one or two votes of equal value, with no more than one vote to be given to any one candidate, in constituencies returning two members”.
	It continues:
	“the two candidates with the most valid votes to be elected in such constituencies.”
	So I understand that the reference to people having “two votes” applies only to the constituencies that are not the three identified.

David Mundell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but I do not think it stands up to legal scrutiny in that regard.

Brian H Donohoe: Can the Minister just tell me why? I have read that provision at some length and I am clearly of the opinion that it covers the points that he says it does not.

David Mundell: The interpretation of that provision is that people in the Western Isles, Orkney or Shetland could still have two votes.

Brian H Donohoe: No.

David Mundell: That is a clear possible interpretation of that provision. The hon. Gentleman is better advised making his case not on the technicalities of the wording, but on his strong beliefs about this issue.
	On new clause 2, I have made clear the Government’s view that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to regulate the conduct of its Members and the relationships between list and constituency Members. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.

Brian H Donohoe: On the basis of what has just been said, I am almost of a mind to press the new clause to a vote.
	Let me make some points to sum up. I would argue that this has been one of the better debates on the Bill that we have had across the piece. It has at times been humorous and it has been good-humoured, which is unusual in some respects. It has also at times been useful and interesting to be able to draw out some of my long-held points of view. I am conscious that in these circumstances—given that this debate is just the beginning—we should withdraw our proposal, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Maritime policy

‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
	(2) In Schedule 5, section E3, leave out—
	(a) the Coastguard Act 1925”.
	(3) After section 90 insert section 90A as follows—
	“Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland)
	90A (1) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is to be treated as a Cross-Border Public Authority for the purposes of sections 88 to 90.
	(2) The funding, operation and planning authority of Maritime and Coastguard Agency facilities in Scotland shall reside with the Scottish Government and the appropriate Scottish Minister.
	(3) These parts of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency which are the responsibility of Scottish Government shall be known as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland).
	(4) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland) will be responsible for maintaining and upholding domestic and international laws and obligations in the Scottish Waters.
	(5) For the purposes of this section, the Scottish Waters are as defined by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999.”.’.—(Mr MacNeil.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Angus MacNeil: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 4—Economic incentives for the Scottish maritime industry—
	‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
	(2) In Schedule 5, section E3, the words “Financial assistance for shipping services which start or finish or both outside Scotland” are replaced with “Financial assistance for shipping services which both start and finish outside Scotland.”.’.
	New clause 12—Scottish maritime boundaries—
	‘(1) In section 126(2) of the 1998 Act, after “Council”, insert “and with the Consent of the Scottish Parliament”.
	(2) At the end of section 126(2) insert “A boundary order shall be issued in 2012.”.’.

Angus MacNeil: Throughout our proceedings, we have heard claims from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats that this Bill is the greatest transfer of powers from Westminster to Scotland in more than 300 years. To ensure that it is truly a transfer of powers, I propose several additions that will see the Scottish Government gain more control over Scotland’s maritime future.
	We seek to devolve the operation and funding of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to Scotland, to remove restrictions in the Scotland Act 1998 that prevent the Scottish Government from providing incentives to the shipping industry in Scotland and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament agrees to any movement of the border instigated from London. I am aware that those proposals were not recommended in the Calman commission’s report, but we cannot expect Calman to have thought of everything. Anything might have come from Calman, I suppose, but, of course, it does not matter because the Government have picked and mixed the recommendations as they were made.
	New clause 3 was sparked by the Government’s proposals to cut the coastguard service throughout the UK. Those proposals seek to leave three to four co-ordination centres south of the border and only one 24-hour co-ordination centre and one part-time centre in Scotland—there are currently five. The proposals were not meant to be debated in this House and were certainly not presented to the Scottish Parliament. That shows a blatant disrespect not only for the Scottish Parliament and Government but for MPs in this House who, to take my case as an example, will be affected by these decisions.
	Through my proposals, we seek to alleviate the financial and administrative burden on the Department for Transport by taking the Scottish portion of the coastguard service out of its realm of responsibility. The decision on the future of the coastguard in Scotland should, rightly, take place in Scotland.

Mark Lazarowicz: Has the hon. Gentleman assessed the views of the trade unions representing those who work in the coastguard service or the seagoing community about whether they want to see the coastguard service split up in that way?

Angus MacNeil: Yes, I have asked people who work in the coastguard and, yes, they do want to see this happen.

Mark Lazarowicz: Just to be clear, I did not mean somebody in the coastguard service whom the hon. Gentleman knows. I asked whether trade unions collectively —at least at a Scottish level—support the change.

Angus MacNeil: I hope that the trade unions would act in the best interests of their members’ employment and the coastguard service throughout Scotland and try to maintain coastguard stations in Scotland. I am quite sure that if the Scottish Government—regardless of their party—were in charge of this matter, the savage cuts would not be happening.
	Scotland has an estimated 60% of all the coastline in the UK, so the Scottish Parliament and Government should surely be the primary body that decides the future of the force that protects mariners and the community. We have already seen the beginning of the process with the passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and we must continue that through these proposals, which would ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Scotland enforced Scots law on environmental matters. We seek to have the MCA fall in line with the local operation of the police, health service and other devolved agencies.
	According to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the seas and coastlines are getting more congested, ships are getting larger and the weather is getting worse. With that information in mind, it surely makes sense to implement a division of labour and allow the MCA in England to focus on Southampton and London and leave Scottish waters to Scotland.
	Our new clause removes the restrictions in the Scotland Act that prevent the Scots Government from running the coastguard. Once we place it in the category of a cross-border public authority, we will remove nearly £5 million of coastguard co-ordination centre operating costs from the Department for Transport’s budgets alone. That would give us the opportunity in Scotland to secure a proper coastguard service for Scotland. In the past year, we have heard that contracts to provide life-saving helicopters have been bungled completely. Our tugboat services have been cut to save money, in line, we are told, with these austere times, but that unfortunately exposes Scotland to severe gaps in coastline coverage. On a side note, we want to know what will happen to our tugs when these front-line services come up for contract renewal in September.
	If Members look closely at the proposals, they will see that we are not attempting to change international agreements or safety legislation. We are simply seeking to ensure that decisions regarding the Scottish coastline are taken in the best interests of Scotland. In short, they move power from Westminster to the most democratic institution representing Scotland—the Scots Parliament.

Russell Brown: If the hon. Gentleman’s new clause were successful, would he envisage more than one full-time station in Aberdeen, or would one suffice in his view?

Angus MacNeil: I would envisage far more than one full-time station in Aberdeen.
	This will not be the first time that the House of Commons has heard of the concept of change and of control moving away from the MCA. In 1989, the Isle of Man formed its own coastguard after the UK unilaterally decided to shut down the coastguard co-ordination centre in Ramsey. The Manx Government—perhaps this shows what happens when there is more local control—rightly decided that they should no longer depend on the United Kingdom to protect their coastline and therefore created their own coastguard. That coastguard has five stations open around the Isle of Man and has retained close ties with the Liverpool maritime rescue co-ordination centre, which I would like to remain open.
	The Government of the Isle of Man took the right decisions at the right time to ensure that their coast was secure. Surely, it cannot be the will of the Committee to deny Scotland that same inalienable right. This is not the first time that a potential coastguard authority move has been presented. In its illustrious 189-year history, the coastguard has been under the Board of Trade between 1923 and 1939, the Ministry of Shipping from 1939 to 1940, the Admiralty from 1940 to 1945, the Ministry of War and then the Ministry of Transport from 1945 to 1964, the Department of Trade from 1964 to 1983, the Department of Transport from 1983 to 1997 and finally, the Department for Transport from
	2002 to this date. All we seek to do is move that one step further and ensure that the Scots coastguard reports directly to Scotland.

Tom Harris: I agree with the substance of what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the effects of the cuts to the coastguard system, but would he be proposing this change if the cuts to the maritime coastguard service were not being made at the Department for Transport? He is in danger, I think, of opening himself up to accusations of opportunism if this move is a response to budget cuts rather than a point of principle. I am not aware that this point of principle has been raised by the SNP in the past.

Angus MacNeil: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on the substantial thrust of my argument and I hope to see him with me in the Lobby as a result. Would I have done this if such a proposal had not been made at the moment? Perhaps not, but given the safety concerns, this matter is pressing. Given that the process started without any risk assessment from the MCA, despite the relevant Minister telling me at the Dispatch Box that there had been such an assessment, I think that politics has to meet the pressing concerns among Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, people who used to be involved in shipping, working coastguards and a variety of people across the community—certainly in the highlands and islands and, I imagine, further down to the Clyde and over to the Forth and, indeed, Shetland.
	New clause 4 would redress a bizarre part of the Scotland Act that prevents the Scottish Government from creating incentives for the maritime industry in Scotland. Currently, the Government of Scotland have the ability to incentivise travel for maritime journeys that both start and end in Scotland, which has meant that a successful pilot project on the west coast for the road equivalent tariff has been brought to the Outer Hebrides and to Coll and Tiree. We hope that policy will continue, as it has done quite a lot to help the economies of those areas in a time of severe economic downturn.
	Maritime policy is vital to Scotland as we are responsible for 70% of all the fish landed in the UK. Aberdeen is home to the North sea oil industry and lands nearly 4.5 million tonnes of cargo annually from approximately 8,000 ships. Clyde port lands 7.5 million tonnes of cargo and Stornoway port in my constituency has 200,000 people travelling through it each year. The ability to control the maritime economy is surely vital to what is a maritime nation. It is vital to secure future growth in the Scottish economy.
	The figures that I have presented for the Aberdeen and Clyde ports are small in comparison with Southampton, which lands 75 million tonnes of cargo annually. Currently, the shipping industry coalesces around the south of England leaving little else for the rest of the UK. It is peculiar that most of Scotland’s goods are transported to the south of England and then driven into Scotland. With ever-increasing fuel costs and more congested motorways, surely that is not a good idea. The cost of moving goods to Scotland will invariably increase as the costs of transportation increase, and we propose that
	costs could be saved if there were an incentive for ships to land their goods in Scotland. The professor of maritime research at Edinburgh Napier university, Alf Baird, put it succinctly when he said that
	“the present reality is that firms located in Scotland are considerably worse off in international transport cost terms compared with firms located close to hub ports in the south east of England…firms in the central belt of Scotland are between 15-23% worse off, while firms in the highlands are 22-33% worse off, and firms located on remote islands between 37-63% worse off…From a purely Scottish perspective this therefore raises the question—is the current method of serving Scottish industry’s global import and export needs through remote UK ports sustainable in the long run? Or, in other words, will rising domestic UK transport costs (rail as well as road) make Scottish industry even less competitive in global markets than it is today, leading to further job losses”—
	that is the important point, as we want to keep people in employment—
	“in manufacturing and reduced competitiveness?”

Fiona O'Donnell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is glad to pause for breath. He has said that he is proposing these new clauses because Calman missed them out, but did he put forward any submissions to the Holyrood Bill Committee or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs about these matters?

Angus MacNeil: The most appropriate place for the measures is in the Bill, which is why I have chosen to bring them forward now.
	Professor Baird has asked rather straightforward questions that should be addressed by a specific maritime policy with regard to seaport provision in Scotland and the impacts of such a policy for trade and economic development. Surely, Scotland should be able to entice shippers to send goods to our ports. As the home of the large northern ports of the UK, we are well placed to provide efficient ports for shipping goods throughout Scotland and, perhaps, the rest of the UK. We should at least be given the opportunity to try. However, there are restrictions in place and all we can do is hope that companies land their goods there. This issue is at the crux of our main argument. Scotland needs to have the economic levers to promote growth, which would also help with the aggregate growth of the British Isles. Without the ability to entice business to Scotland, we will lose a real chance to grow sectors of our economy that could provide a counterweight to other portions of the Scottish economy. Our new clauses would ensure that the Scottish Government have the ability to promote the Scottish shipping industry and Scottish ports.
	My final new clause concerns Scottish maritime borders. New clause 12 would ensure that the agreement of the Scottish Parliament was needed for any future change to Scotland’s maritime borders and that a new border order would be made next year. To those who think this an insular, politically driven clause, I ask this question: “Why is the Scottish Parliament not part of the decision-making process in determining Scotland’s borders?” This new clause deals specifically with the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which moved Scotland’s maritime boundary north by several degrees giving 6,000 square miles of water to England. The Government never consulted the Scots Government or
	the Scottish people about that. I understand that an Order in Council was made and discussed in the UK Parliament, but I was not in the House in 1999. The Scots Parliament has debated the matter in earnest, and although jibes were passed between the parties—as is inevitable—the outcome was clear: the UK Government were dismissing that brand new Parliament and no one really knew why.
	In the Scots Parliament debate of 26 April 2000, John Home Robertson, MSP, tabled a motion stating:
	“That the Parliament notes the terms of the report by the Rural Affairs Committee, The impact of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 (SP paper 42), in particular its dissatisfaction and concern about the level of consultation carried out prior to the introduction of the boundaries order, that the introduction of a boundaries order appears not to have identified any inconsistency with the Civil Jurisdiction (Offshore Activities) Order 1987, and that the amount of fishing activity in the disputed area does not appear to have influenced the Order, and further notes the Committee’s recommendation that the Secretary of State for Scotland should either introduce a new, revised Order, or support a Bill calling for a revised boundary proposed in the House of Commons by Archy Kirkwood MP.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 26 April 2000; c. 10.]
	Archy Kirkwood is now Baron Kirkwood of Kirkhope.
	The Liberal Democrat MSP Mike Rumbles said
	“The secretary of state’s view can be justified only if he believes that changing the boundary sets an unwelcome precedent. In my view, that is an entirely negative and unnecessary approach. He could have taken the opportunity to demonstrate positively that both the UK Government and the Scottish Executive are prepared to work in partnership to smooth out difficulties such as this that have emerged as a result of the Scotland Act 1998. It was a mistake.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 26 April 2000; c. 32.]
	After the debate, the Government were lambasted in the press, with constitutional expert Alan Perry calling the Government’s reasoning into doubt. In the Litigation Review, he wrote:
	“Without any real prior consultation or warning, the order effectively removed some 6,000 square miles of sea off the east of Scotland from the Scottish to the English jurisdiction…The government claims that it has simply drawn an 'equidistance' line between Scottish and English waters in conformity with international law…This claim is disingenuous in the extreme.”
	Mr Perry, who has 25 years’ experience and mostly works on public international law cases, said there was no general rule in international law that equidistance was a proper basis for such a line. He asked:
	“Must we then conclude that this dreadful blunder is simply an example of monumental incompetence?”
	I seek to correct that blundering incompetence with my new clause. I cannot think of any reason why the Scots Parliament—the elected voice of the people of Scotland—does not have the right even to be consulted regarding proposals to move our borders. Surely, devolution means that the House has given real powers to the Scots Parliament and not piecemeal powers because of fears about particular Governments.
	Tonight’s vote will be a litmus test of Scots MPs in particular—a marker that will, perhaps, ring in history. There is no reason to oppose my new clauses, especially the last one, as they help Scotland. The House has to stop holding us back in the name of the Union. Some say that the political Union has done great things to benefit London but very little to benefit the whole of Scotland, and perhaps I am one of them. I would say that London has benefited more from those it is not
	politically united with. Indeed, the aggregate gross domestic product of the British Isles is higher due to the independence of autonomous areas around the UK, such as Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I note that their Governments have not applied to be absorbed into the UK.
	All the hallmarks of the great devolution dividend are falling apart around us. The coastguard service is to be cut as the Scottish seas are becoming more and more congested, and VAT has risen to 20%.

Michael Connarty: Before the hon. Gentleman disappears off the map of the maritime borders of the UK, may we return to the subject in hand? As someone who represents the busiest port in Scotland, Grangemouth, it concerns me that the ships that come in and out of it travel more in non-Scottish waters than in Scottish waters to reach that port. Dividing the forces that need to be gathered to fight the terrible cuts in the entire UK coastguard service that are coming from the Government and hiving off Scotland would not greatly advantage the people who come in and out of the port that I represent. Is it not better that we stand together and fight the cuts than try to divide into two different land masses and two different Governments?

Angus MacNeil: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am also sure that he would like to see a busier port in Grangemouth and a Government able to incentivise greater activity in Grangemouth. I therefore expect him to support my new clauses.
	These measures will mean that the Scottish Parliament and Government can get on with the job of making Scotland better and allow the rest of the UK to focus on what it considers to be important. This is a litmus test that will show Scotland which of its MPs stand for Scotland and which of them focus on party advantage. I intend to press new clauses 3 and 12 to Divisions.

Frank Doran: I shall speak mainly on new clause 3. I am rather bemused by the contribution that we have just heard on new clause 12. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has presented a dangerous argument, and I am not sure whether I totally understand it.
	I have always understood that the current boundary was agreed by international negotiation in 1707. The Scottish border used to go down as far as Newcastle and in some respects almost as far as Bolton, I think, but things have changed. I know that the SNP has a hang-up about the oil industry and the fact that what it sees as its rightful share has been stolen from it. However, there are much more serious issues to be discussed today.
	The hon. Gentleman appropriately raised the issue of the coastguard. I know that his coastguard station in Stornoway is one of the stations under threat. It is right for him to fight for it, but it is not right to extend the argument to where nationalists tend to end up—that the only way to solve a problem is to move it to Scotland. There is a serious issue around the reorganisation of the coastguard. He knows as well as I do that in Scotland there will be just two stations—the maritime operating centre, which it is proposed will be in Aberdeen in my constituency, and either Shetland or Stornoway.
	My understanding is that Shetland did not figure in the original Government proposal, but a certain amount of influence within Government has seen Shetland on the list. I hope the hon. Gentleman wins his battle to save the Stornoway station. That battle is entirely appropriate. Apart from anything else, the fact that in the Western Isles there is a preponderance of Gaelic speaking and Gaelic place names means that, if there is any risk in that area, it is essential that the geography is properly understood. It is important to make that point.

Angus MacNeil: Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, surely he understands my argument that it would be better for control to lie in the Scottish Parliament and with the Scottish Government. Since 1999, the Scottish Government have been either SNP or Labour-led. My new clause would remove the Maritime and Coastguard Agency from the clutches of the Conservatives, whose tendency seems to be to cut. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer to leave the agency with the Conservatives?

Frank Doran: My argument is that a problem is not solved just by moving it to Scotland. There are fundamental problems with the coastguard—for example, most of the equipment that it uses is 40 years out of date. There is new technology available which is necessary for proper safety on our seas. The money needs to be invested. Given the present financial situation, one of the few ways that money can be invested, sadly, involves the closure of a number of coastguards. I have been told by workers at my own coastguard that with the new technology, Aberdeen could cover the whole of Scotland, but the point that I made earlier about the Western Isles is recognised. The issue will not be resolved simply by asking for it to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
	I am by no means in favour of everything proposed in the consultation paper published by the Government, but what is needed is a properly co-ordinated national system, which we do not have at present. We have groups or pairs of coastguard stations which can communicate with one another, but in the event of a major disaster or a major incident, it is difficult to see how we could get the full benefit of a national system and the investment that we need to make by separating the Scottish service from the rest of the UK and allowing that to operate on its own.
	I was heavily involved in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha disaster, when the coastguard played a pivotal role—I do not know which other stations were involved. The service then was very similar to what it is now, and there was not the capacity to involve the whole of the coastguard operation throughout the UK. Given what we have seen in other countries in recent years, it is possible that that facility may be necessary in the future. As I have said, the way to resolve a major infrastructure problem is not to cut it off and devolve it to Scotland, which is a blinded and fundamentalist view of how we should function.
	We need a co-ordinated system throughout the UK. One of the key weaknesses of breaking up the system is what the Scottish Government would or could do with it. Like many people, I am suspicious about the fact that the SNP Government in Edinburgh have made no attempt to give us a proper Budget for the next three years, as we
	have seen the current Government and the previous Labour Government produce for the UK. Of course, there is an election on the way, so that will be the main consideration.
	If the coastguard system is to be upgraded to modern standards, where will the necessary money come from? If the hon. Gentleman was successful with his new clause, there would clearly have to be some transfer of money from the UK to pay for the existing system, but not for upgrading it. The system that I hope will be based in my constituency at Aberdeen, once the consultation exercise is over and the investment has been made, will serve not just Scottish waters, but almost half the UK—it will be capable of serving the whole UK. Would that be on offer in a system run under the narrow nationalist view that the hon. Gentleman is taking? I do not know.
	I need to know, and the Committee needs to know, where the money will come from to upgrade and modernise the system. It is not clear that that money exists in the Scottish Budget. If the SNP Government cannot afford to build any new schools and are not able to fund local services properly, how will they modernise the coastguard system, which is essential for the safety of our maritime fleet, our sailors and our fishing industry? The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the dangers inherent in that industry. There are more industrial accidents and deaths in the fishing industry than in virtually all the rest of industry in Britain put together. The most dangerous industry in Britain depends on the coastguard, and many operators in the fishing industry are based in his constituency.
	If the new clause is part of a campaign to save the hon. Gentleman’s own coastguard station, fine. I can accept it on those terms, but if it is a serious attempt to change the system, it must be rejected.

David Mundell: This is a debate on an important issue, and in many respects I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is raising the issue to ensure that it is debated and his concerns are heard, then I accept his right to do so. However, if he is seriously suggesting that the coastguard service should be devolved, then obviously the Government cannot accept his proposal. The point to be made is that this matter was not brought before the Calman commission; nor was it brought before the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs as something that he had considered, along with the other changes that he proposed. Indeed, I am not even aware of the matter being raised as part of the so-called national conversation—something that you will have heard about in these exchanges, Ms Primarolo—which was promoted by the SNP Government in Edinburgh with the primary purpose, it would appear, of furthering the cause of independence at public expense.
	If agreed, new clause 3 would devolve the funding and management of coastguard services to the Scottish Parliament and a new Marine and Coastguard Agency (Scotland) would be formed. A consultation is currently under way on proposals for modernising the coastguard service, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said.
	The Government are inviting comments from staff, partner organisations and the public, and the consultation is on our proposed blueprint for the future structure of Her Majesty’s coastguard. We are confident that the concept would produce a nationally networked coastguard service that was resilient, effective and efficient. However, the Government have recognised—including the Prime Minister, in an exchange with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, which I saw—the considerable strength of feeling on the issue in certain parts of the United Kingdom, and have therefore extended the consultation period for an additional six weeks. Indeed, given the relevance and importance of the issue, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) had hoped to be present for this debate, but he is now travelling to Stornoway and Shetland as part of an ongoing consultation and dialogue. He has met Members throughout the country, given the concerns that have been raised.
	The proposals include the establishment of two nationally networked maritime operations centres in Aberdeen and the Southampton-Portsmouth area. There would also be six fully integrated sub-centres located at Dover, Falmouth, Swansea, Liverpool or Belfast, Stornoway or Shetland, and Humber. With the exception of Dover, the sub-centres would operate in the daytime only. I stress again that the current proposals for coastguard modernisation are out to consultation. No decisions have been taken. Scottish interests will be taken into account when weighing up the needs of Scotland and the rest of the UK. However, as has been said, the simple transfer of powers would in no way guarantee how they would be used, what approach a future Scottish Government would take to the coastguard, or our ability to produce a nationally networked coastguard service.
	It is important to note that coastguard activities are interlinked with maritime services generally. They are very much an international activity. The parameters of many coastguard functions are largely determined by merchant shipping law, so if the former were devolved while the latter as a whole remained reserved, there would be potential for much confusion and either overlaps or gaps in functional coverage of the substantive law. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is an Executive agency with no separate legal existence from the Secretary of State for Transport. It has a large number of responsibilities other than those relating to the coastguard and search and rescue functions. For example, it deals with merchant shipping and acts on behalf of the Receiver of Wreck. It is not clear from the new clause whether the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar intends Scottish Ministers to assume responsibility for all those functions—although given his views on such matters, I suspect that he does intend that—or simply for those relating to search and rescue at sea.
	The Commission on Scottish Devolution, on which this Bill is based, did not review the coastguard service; therefore this Bill is not the place for discussions about it. That is the purpose of the ongoing consultation. I urge the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and for Aberdeen North, along with all those with an interest in this matter, to make their views known as part of that process.
	New clause 4 would devolve funding arrangements for shipping services. I have to concede that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar enthusiastically sped
	through his points about it, although the matters that he raised would have merited further discussion, as part of the fuller Calman process or the Committee’s considerations. He made important points about incentivising the use of remote points, but this is not the appropriate moment to introduce that without the sort of scrutiny and analysis that we have seen for other clauses in the Bill.
	New clause 12 deals with Scottish maritime boundaries. It seeks to require the consent of the Scottish Parliament to any order made under section 126(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, and to require a boundary order to be issued in 2012. Again, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Calman commission did not recommend that provision, and as far as I am aware it was not raised with him.

Pete Wishart: The Minister keeps going on about things not being raised by the Calman commission, but nor was Antarctica or appeals to the Supreme Court. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Government are introducing some stuff that was not in Calman, so surely they can consider other stuff that was similarly not in Calman.

David Mundell: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the issue of Antarctica was fully considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee. It was not simply plucked out of the air and dealt with in an amendment in this place.
	I understand the SNP’s dogmatic opposition to the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 and its view that if Scotland had more ocean under its control, that ocean would benefit from SNP policies, but I am afraid that it is not a view I subscribe to. As the SNP knows, the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order has two effects. First, it determines the boundary of waters that are to be treated as internal waters or the territorial sea of the UK adjacent to Scotland. That is relevant to the definition of “Scotland” in section 126(1) of the 1998 Act, which is used for the purpose of exercising devolved functions and the extent of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. Similar provision is made in legislation relating to Northern Ireland and Wales for the purposes of their devolution settlements.
	Secondly, the order determines the boundary of those waters to be treated as sea within British fishery limits adjacent to Scotland. That is relevant to the definition of “the Scottish zone”—in section 126(1) of the 1998 Act—in which the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to regulate sea fisheries in accordance with the EU’s common fisheries policy and where fishermen are subject to Scots law. Scottish Ministers also have various Executive functions that are exercisable in the Scottish zone in relation to matters such as licensing and planning.
	Crucially, the order defines boundaries off both the west and east coasts using the median line mythology recommended by the UN convention on the law of the sea. It is always interesting when we find the SNP in disagreement with the UN because it does not suit its purposes. This is the standard international mythology—methodology for defining water boundaries. It is illogical to use it off the west coast but deploy a boundary based on historical practice off the east coast. The Government have no plans to redefine the nautical boundaries between Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. We cannot
	accept that a boundary order should be issued in 2012 when no reason has been given for the need to do so other than SNP dogma. Although we recognise the strength of feeling on the coastguard, which is an important topic of debate, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.

Angus MacNeil: I will be brief in the hope that we will get to the vote. I am perplexed as to why the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) wants to leave the Tories in charge of Scotland’s coastguard.

Thomas Docherty: Temporarily.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman says temporarily, but in my lifetime I have seen an awfully lot of time that he might call temporary—the 18 years from 1979 to 1997. We then had Labour saying that it could do this, that and the rest of it and that we should vote Labour to stop the Tories, and that did not work once.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen North said that the new clause would not resolve the issue, but surely it would at the very least lessen the problem by moving responsibility for the coastguard to Scotland. He said that he wants a properly co-ordinated national system. That is what I want, but I fear that we will not get it because of the cuts. I recognise and respect his input and involvement in Piper Alpha. He probably misses the point that the Isle of Man has its own coastguard and seems to co-ordinate well with Liverpool, and presumably with the Republic of Ireland as well. I am disappointed that he descended into making slurs; he could have done better. The new clause is about saving coastguard stations in Scotland and keeping a coastguard in Scotland.
	I of course welcome the Minister’s encouragement on ports, but he should be aware that I am trying to keep a level of coastguard service in Scotland. Regardless of the party in power in Scotland, I am quite sure that such savage cuts should not be made to our marine insurance policy, the coastguard stations. In short, the Minister sees London as the only way, and that there can be no other way such as on the Isle of Man.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus MacNeil: No, I will make progress.
	I see that the Minister was happy that the sea area was taken from Scotland in 1999, and he revealingly made a Freudian slip by saying “mythology”. Why was that change made in 1999? I fear that he has given up his birthright for a mess of pottage.
	I shall seek to divide the Committee on new clause 3 and—I hope—on new clause 12.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 9, Noes 480.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Rail passenger services

‘In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Act, in section E2, after “Exceptions” there is inserted—
	“The provision of rail passenger services which start and finish in Scotland, including the power to decide who will run such services, the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 notwithstanding.”.’.—(Thomas Docherty.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Thomas Docherty: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I am obviously delighted to see that so many Members on both sides of the House take such a passionate and keen interest in Scotland’s railway services. We have had a great deal of support for the measure from the trade unions in Scotland. This is a simple, technical new clause. Most people think that the Scottish Parliament already has the ability to decide what the model of the franchise will be, and I am keen that the situation should be resolved—[ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are debating a new clause to the Bill, and hon. Members should listen to the speeches. If they want to have private conversations, perhaps they could go outside. Mr Docherty is a bit squashed on the Bench there, but I am sure that he will stand in the right place while he is speaking to his new clause.

Thomas Docherty: Thank you, Ms Primarolo.
	Most people think that the Scottish Parliament already has the power to decide on the model for the franchise. After all, it has to fund the ScotRail franchise, through its Ministers, and it is responsible for the letting of the franchise. It is also responsible for funding the building of new railways in Scotland, and it is worth noting that a number of new railway lines opened in Scotland between 1999 and 2007 thanks to the Labour-led Scottish Executive. The Airdrie to Bathgate line and the Larkhall to Milngavie line are two obvious examples. It is disappointing that the SNP Government saw fit to cancel the Glasgow airport rail link; that is a blot on their track record, if the Committee will pardon my rather poor pun.
	The new clause would not change the health and safety rules for the railways. It is absolutely right that we have a standard—[ Interruption. ]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am really sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I can barely hear what he is saying. There are too many private conversations going on in the Chamber. Out of respect to him, will those who do not wish to listen to his speech on the new clause leave the Chamber quietly now?

Thomas Docherty: Thank you, Ms Primarolo. I see that the Chamber is suddenly becoming a bit emptier. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the Deputy Prime Minister is hosting a drinks reception tonight for Government Back Benchers. I imagine that hon. Members are off to make sure he does not drink all the wine himself, although after the Barnsley result he probably needs to do so.
	I shall return to the substantive issue of the railways in Scotland. As I was saying before I was so gently interrupted, it is obviously right that we should retain the single health and safety policy throughout Great Britain. I say “Great Britain” because, as hon. Members will be aware, the railways in Northern Ireland are part of the single railway system of the island of Ireland. My proposal refers only to the railway network in Great Britain.
	It is bizarre that, following the Scotland Act 1998 and the Railways Act 2005, we have successfully given greater powers to Scottish Ministers to do everything except determine the model of the franchise. I am not going to argue that a switch to a not-for-dividend model would necessarily be in the best interests of passengers in Scotland. As a member of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, I have worked for Network Rail. The problems that Network Rail has had in the past are well documented, and there is an ongoing issue involving the cases of sexual harassment and bullying by Peter Bennett, the head of human resources, of many of his employees. That has resulted in about £300,000 of damages and compensation being paid to employees. This is not an ideological debate; it is about who is best placed to make the decisions.
	I shall give a couple of examples of how the present system is not working. We have only to look at the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I was lucky enough to live there, in the village of Moffat, for a number of years, and the Minister will recall that I put myself forward as a Labour candidate
	in a local council by-election. It was a secret ballot, so I am not quite sure how he voted, but I recall his featuring on one of my rival candidate’s leaflets, promising that if the Conservatives won the by-election—which, surprisingly, they did—he would ensure the reopening of the Beattock railway line. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) will know from his time in the rail industry and as a Transport Minister that that line sits on what is now the west coast main line.
	The Minister was also a great champion of the Eastriggs railway station, which is ably represented by my old colleague, Councillor Sean Marshall. The Minister’s constituency also contains the village of Thornhill, which is in the Galloway area of the constituency. In all those places, he was a huge champion of the reopening of railway stations, yet after six years as a Member of Parliament and 10 months as a Minister in the Scotland Office, none of those railway stations has reopened. That could not possibly be because he was making promises that he could not deliver, so the fault must be with the franchise model. We need no better reason for giving Scottish Ministers the power to shape their own model.

Tom Harris: I am genuinely unclear about the nature of my hon. Friend’s grievance with the current model. Is he saying that Scottish Ministers and Transport Scotland do not have the legislative capability to reopen disused stations?

Thomas Docherty: The issue at the moment is that Scottish Ministers must let the franchise according to a privatised railway model. As my hon. Friend knows, the Railways Act 2005 specifically bans a public body from acting as the franchise operator. The only exception to that is if that body is the operator of last resort, as is now the case with the east coast main line. The new clause would give Scottish Ministers the right not only to fund the railway, to let the franchise and to monitor its performance—all of which they have to do anyway—but to determine the shape of the model involved. This might well result in a privatised model like the one that we now have on the ScotRail franchise, or perhaps in a co-operative model. The Ministers might ask Transport Scotland to run the franchise, or set up a new company called Scottish Passenger Transport to do so.
	The new clause provides a logical conclusion to the direction of travel—again, please pardon my poor pun—of the reconfiguration of the railways in Scotland. The reason that the proposal was not considered by the Calman commission is that it involves such a small technical change. Most Members of Parliament and MSPs were simply not aware that Scottish Ministers did not have this ability.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these points. It is possible, if his civil servants have not done a particularly good job of advising him, that he might claim that the measure would somehow bring the whole of Great Britain’s rail network crashing down. Obviously, that would be an absurd argument. The Department for Transport is already running the east coast main line as the operator of last resort, placing the line back in the public domain. I am talking about a service that is wholly contained within Scotland, and the measure would have no impact on any other service. It would have no impact on the CrossCountry service or
	on the east coast main line—or, indeed, on the west coast services. The only services that leave Scotland are the one that runs from the Minister’s constituency to Carlisle, on the Glasgow to Carlisle line, and the Caledonian sleeper, which runs between London and Fort William, Inverness, Edinburgh and Glasgow. That service would stay in the franchise. As I have said, this is a very technical new clause. It is supported by all the trade unions and by the Scottish Government, who see it as a logical way forward.

Iain Stewart: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully. Does his new clause relate specifically to franchise matters and the operating side of the railways, or is he also seeking the devolution of some of the functions held by Network Rail?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, which lets me clarify that this is purely about the franchise because the functions of Network Rail are already devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is part of the absurdity of the situation. Scottish Ministers have responsibility for everything except, rightly, health and safety, because that needs to be regulated in a different way, and the franchise model itself. The funding, letting and monitoring of the franchise are carried out by the Scottish Parliament, but it does not set its own model. I look forward to the Minister’s well-chosen words of response to my case.

Michael Weir: Much to my surprise, I support what the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has said. He made a good case, as it would be sensible to devolve this function to Scotland, although he ruined it a bit by making a totally unnecessary attack on the Scottish Government, who have supported the railway industry throughout Scotland and put a great deal of money into upgrading it and opening new lines and stations.

Frank Roy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Weir: No, thank you.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife talked about the Glasgow airport rail link. I would be interested to see whether that proposal appears in Labour’s manifesto with full details of how it is to be funded, and what Labour is going to cut in order to do so, given the cuts that are coming in the Scottish budget because of Labour’s economic mismanagement and the incompetence of the current UK Government.

Frank Roy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Weir: No, thank you.
	Scotland has a good record on rail and will continue to invest in rail and build up the rail system. This proposal would give the Scottish Government the opportunity to get a different franchise arrangement should they wish to do so. It would be up to them to decide on the franchise, but it would provide flexibility. We support the new clause, notwithstanding the totally unnecessary attacks on the Scottish Government by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

Tom Greatrex: I do not intend to detain the Committee because there are other new clauses we wish to debate.
	The new clause deals with an issue that was probably neglected in the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament in relation to rail, and it is appropriate and sensible that we use the opportunity of this Bill to resolve that. On that basis, we intend to support it and assume, given that it is a sensible proposal on a technical issue, that the Government will not have too much of a problem with it.

David Mundell: I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) missed out Symington station as one of those that I continue to campaign to be reopened in my constituency, as it has brought vital rail services to that part of Scotland.
	I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the requirements of the rail services in Scotland. His constituency counterpart, Helen Eadie, was the only Labour MSP to vote against the legislative consent motion for the Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Of course, Mrs Eadie is well known for her radical views on the Scottish rail network, proposing as she has the demolition of the Forth rail bridge. I was pleased that he did not suggest that that would fall within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Thomas Docherty: It might help the Minister to know that the Forth bridge is a category A listed building, so unfortunately Mrs Eadie would not have the ability to knock it down.

David Mundell: I am grateful for that confirmation, because the newspaper article that I read described Mrs Eadie as being unrepentant despite criticism from several quarters in that regard.
	I am afraid that I must disappoint both the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), because the Government cannot support new clause 9. It deals with rail responsibilities, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife explained, and seeks to give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over the provision of rail passenger services that start and finish in Scotland. That is a much longer list than the one to which he alluded, because it involves all cross-border services, including the Virgin franchise services on the west coast main line, which do not start and finish in Scotland and remain the responsibility of the Department for Transport.

Iain Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow and Edinburgh councils are running a strong campaign for the construction of a high-speed line from London to the midlands and further north, with the simultaneous building of a high-speed line from Scotland southwards? That would provide additional cross-border services, and it, too, would have to be taken into account when framing legislation such as this.

David Mundell: Indeed. As my hon. Friend will know, the coalition Government are committed to high-speed rail services throughout the United Kingdom. On Thursday,
	there will be an event in Glasgow, attended by a Transport Minister, about a consultation on the ongoing developments in high-speed rail. The first part of the high-speed rail service from London to Birmingham is vital for its further development into Scotland.

Michael Weir: I am listening closely to the Minister, but I am slightly confused. He is talking about the development of high-speed rail, which will be very good if it comes to Scotland—we will see whether the Government ever get it there—but that service does not begin and end in Scotland, and neither do the Virgin or east coast services. I do not understand his point. The new clause refers to services that begin and end in Scotland—basically, the ScotRail franchise as it operates at the moment.

David Mundell: My point, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise for dogmatic reasons, is that there are important rail services in Scotland that cross the border, and that those services remain important.

Mark Lazarowicz: Given that that is the current situation, why on earth are the Government opposing a new clause that refers to services that “start and finish”, not “start or finish”, in Scotland?

David Mundell: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, he would have heard him give a very narrow definition of services which start and finish in Scotland, without giving sufficient recognition to the fact that there are significant services that cross the border.

Tom Harris: I listened closely to my hon. Friend’s speech, and he was very explicit in saying that the new clause refers only to the ScotRail franchise. That includes one cross-border service, the Caledonian sleeper, but this would have no effect whatever on other franchise services that cross the border—Virgin, East Coast and TransPennine Express. They would be completely untouched; nothing would change in their operational or financial arrangements. The only thing that would change is the ScotRail franchise. Can the Minister explain why that is beyond the wit of the Government?

David Mundell: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would realise that I have said that Scotland benefits from a mix of services within the ScotRail franchise, and that cross-border services are vital to Scotland. I would have hoped that he would support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that high-speed rail is important to Scotland. However, none of those things is why the Government do not support the new clause.

Iain Stewart: The Minister is being very generous. I am happy to stand corrected, but I believe that there is a cross-border ScotRail service. It probably goes through Dumfries in his constituency to Carlisle and on to Newcastle. How will that service be included in the new clause?

David Mundell: There are indeed services that travel from Glasgow to Dumfries and on to Newcastle.
	However, the Government’s objection to the new clause is that we are committed to maintaining a GB-wide national rail network that is publicly specified, funded
	in the public interest and provided by the private sector. The new clause would interfere with that national network. If the intention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife is to allow for a not-for-dividend operator of the ScotRail network, that is possible within the current framework.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more. I agree with him that the GB-wide network should be publicly specified and commercially provided by the private sector. However, surely it goes against the spirit of devolution and of the Scotland Bill to deny Scottish Ministers the right to take a different view with regard to one self-contained franchise in Scotland. Surely devolution is about allowing Scottish Ministers to make mistakes, if that is what they wish to do.

David Mundell: The devolution settlement is indeed about allowing the Scottish Government to take decisions in respect of the areas for which they are responsible, as determined by the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scotland Bill. This discussion is about whether the issue in question should be devolved to the Scottish Government. The Government do not agree with that proposal because we believe that it would open the opportunity to fundamentally alter the national framework by allowing a renationalisation of the railway in Scotland.

Tom Harris: Will the Minister explain what negative consequences have resulted in the GB-wide network from the nationalisation of the east coast main line franchise?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman knows better than most that the Government were required to take over the east coast main line as a measure of last resort. Within the framework of the rail industry, there have to be measures of last resort. It is not a measure that the Government wish to promote. As I have said, we wish to promote a national rail network that is publicly specified, funded in the public interest and provided by the private sector. As I have also said, if it is the intention that a not-for-dividend company should operate, there is nothing to stop that in the present arrangements.

Thomas Docherty: I would not wish to suggest that the Minister is misleading the House—he has obviously been misinformed by the civil servants in the Box—but the Railways Act 1993 is explicit that a public sector operator cannot run the railways. I would be happy to go out to the Lobby and get the section of the Act that says that.

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to give a different definition. I am specifying a not-for-dividend organisation. If he wants to go beyond that and into the realms of opening up the powers for the Scottish Government to renationalise the railways in Scotland, he should promote that point in a different debate, and not by tabling a new clause to this Bill. If he genuinely believes that the railways in Scotland should be renationalised, he should make that argument in the appropriate place.
	The hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said that this was a minor matter that was being brought forward at this stage because it had simply been overlooked. However,
	I believe that it would have benefited from the thorough scrutiny of the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament and from discussion in the Scottish Affairs Committee.

John Thurso: I have no doubt that the Minister is right to resist the amendment, because I am sure that it is technically deficient in some way, but—[ Laughter. ] I took part in the entire Committee stage of the Railways Act 2005, and the intention was to devolve everything that could be devolved to the Scottish Government in relation to the railways. Is there no room for compromise to allow for what is a reasonably sensible suggestion without breaking the principle that the Minister is evoking?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman, as always, offers wise words. I thought that he was going to refer to the debate in this House on 31 March 1998, although he was not then a Member, in which rail powers were debated in the context of the original Scotland Bill. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was prominent in that debate, as he was in our earlier discussion on voting systems.

Mark Lazarowicz: Again, I honestly do not understand the Minister’s position. The new clause refers to the provision of rail services, but it does not provide for the devolution of the rail infrastructure. The tracks and the rest of it could not be sold off. I suggest that he remembers that he is in a coalition and rethinks this issue before he is deserted by some of his colleagues to his right.

David Mundell: I have set out why the Government cannot accept the new clause. The Government believe that the devolved powers, which are significant, are best exercised within a coherent GB structure, as provided under the Railways Acts of 1993 and 2005. We believe that it is essential that the overall regime for the provision of rail passenger services and their regulation remains a reserved matter. It would not be sensible to run the railway in such a way that the Scottish Parliament could overturn the framework that governs the operation of passenger services on a GB basis. Our policy is to maintain a unified national rail network that is subject to appropriate oversight by Scottish Ministers. I believe that the current system achieves that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife to withdraw the new clause.

Thomas Docherty: This should have been a relatively short and reasonable debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) said, on the face of it there should have been no opposition to the new clause. I am therefore pretty surprised by the rather weak arguments that the civil servants have foisted upon the Minister, who I think knows better.
	To address the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), it would be absurd if a railway line that ran from Glasgow down through Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway did not have its terminus in Carlisle. There is a variation in the operating rules that allows ScotRail to run that service to Carlisle. That service is part of the ScotRail franchise and has no impact on the other services that run through and connect at Carlisle.

Iain Stewart: Perhaps I can clarify my point. I understood that the hon. Gentleman’s argument was about devolving the whole of the ScotRail franchise, and I was simply trying to clarify what would happen to the one route that is within that franchise but is a cross-border service.

Thomas Docherty: Obviously that would be part of the ScotRail franchise and would carry on in that way.
	The Minister’s argument is clearly ideological. He assumes that if the Scottish Parliament were given responsibility for the matter, it would automatically nationalise the railway. That is not the purpose of the new clause. It is about giving Scottish Ministers the power and authority to make that decision. His arguments are weak.

Alan Reid: I am genuinely confused by what the hon. Gentleman said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). The new clause is clear that only passenger services that start and finish in Scotland should be devolved, but the hon. Gentleman says he wants to devolve the ScotRail franchise. However, as we have heard, that franchise sometimes crosses the border.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining us at this late stage. I must clarify for him that the legal terminology in the Railways Act 1993 defines the franchise area as those services that begin and end wholly within Scotland. However, the franchise also covers the tiny stretch to Carlisle. He might wish to take up that legal point with the Library, but it does not affect the new clause.
	I am conscious that we are keeping Conservative Members back from their drinks reception with the Deputy Prime Minister. I regret to say that I found the Minister’s arguments rather weak and will therefore press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 172, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Crown Estate

‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act, paragraphs 2(3) and 3(3)(a) are omitted.
	(2) The Crown Estate is to be treated as a cross-border public authority for the purposes of sections 88 to 90 of the 1998 Act.
	(3) In section 1(4) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, for “Secretary of State” wherever it appears, substitute “Scottish Ministers”.’.—(Mr MacNeil.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Angus MacNeil: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	In discussing new clause 10, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, I wish to present just a few simple questions to the Committee.
	What accountability do Crown Estate commissioners have to Scotland? The head office of the commissioners is here in London, the revenues for the Crown Estate are paid here in London, and the commissioners are not obligated to report to the Scots Parliament, which is the most democratic forum representing Scotland—instead, they sparingly report to this Parliament. The Crown Estate commissioners in Scotland operate under Scots law, because areas over which they take so much control, such as the foreshore and sea bed, are governed by Scots law. My argument is that the administration of the Crown Estate in Scotland should be constituted and controlled within Scots law and the Scottish Parliament.
	Scotland accounts for 6% of the Crown Estate’s moneys. Two years ago, that was £17 million, and last year it was £13 million. People to whom I have spoken consider the way in which the Crown Estate commissioners operate in Scotland to be parasitic. Other than demanding money, the commissioners are felt not to conduct themselves with much positive impact. In fact, they are found to be quite menacing. Year after year around the nation’s coast, they leech their danegeld from harbours, ports, moorings industries and some of the most fragile parts of the Scottish economy. In Stornoway alone, they take £17,000 from the port authority, whose tie I am wearing tonight. It is a galling circumstance in an island community to lose a greater part of a person’s wage to the commissioners, when they plough no profits into the harbour or investment, unlike the port authority. The port authority is dealing with a landlord—or a landlord agent—with no obligations at all. In addition, last year, for no visible return, £2.3 million vanished from the salmon farm industry in Scotland, which must compete with the sharp and capable Norwegians, among others.
	The commissioners sold portions of their urban portfolio from Edinburgh’s lucrative Princes street for an £8 million loss to fund shopping centres and warehouses in England. We have been told time and again by successive UK Governments that Scotland is not getting short-changed
	from the Crown Estate. The commissioners say that they are the best managers of the land, but from what I have seen and from what people have told me, with respect, I must disagree.
	The Crown Estate commission is a large management organisation, the sole purpose of which, according to the Crown Estate Act 1961, is to “maintain and enhance” the value of the Crown Estate
	“and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management.”
	How can that organisation manage its land effectively for the people of Scotland when it need not report to the Scottish Government or Parliament, or indeed to Scottish local authorities?
	Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, the local council in the Outer Hebrides, recently produced a paper on renewable energy that in fact turned out in large part to be about the limitations to development and the problems that the Crown Estate commissioners pose. It states:
	“The current Crown Estate lease model is outdated, unfair and discriminatory and this inequality will be compounded as the industry grows…It is critical to the sustainability of the”
	Outer Hebrides
	“that significant lease income from the growing marine energy industry is retained in the”
	Outer Hebrides. The people of the Outer Hebrides
	“view their seas as they do their land…as a resource for the local community. Where possible, lease income from marine projects should follow the onshore wind model and remain in the”
	Outer Hebrides.
	“The islands of Scotland should”
	be permitted to
	“play a more active part in management of their coastal waters and should take a corresponding benefit from the resources present in these waters.”
	The opinion of the Comhairle is that the advent of devolution has had a detrimental impact on the Crown Estate, which has unfortunately moved
	“further away from Scottish sea-based communities and lessened”
	its
	“accountability in Scotland. Crown Estate administration and revenues of Scottish territorial waters should operate as part of the Scottish Government”
	in partnership with the appropriate local authority. The Comhairle states:
	“Management of the local foreshore should transfer to the”
	appropriate
	“Local Authority…The Crown Estate lease process is rigid and inflexible, incapable of responding to fast moving developments in the marine energy sector…a more responsive process”
	is required to
	“accommodate speculative marine deployments outwith the terms of current or proposed lease bidding rounds.”
	That is fairly damning.
	I understand that the Crown Estate commissioners offer annual reports to the Houses of Parliament under a compulsory legislative duty and do so to the Scots Parliament out of courtesy. Although this Parliament can hold the Crown Estate to account via the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland—in my opinion, it is not much of an account—the Scots Parliament holds no such right.
	Let us look back at the genesis of all this. Robin Callander’s book, “How Scotland is Owned”, outlines the situation along these lines: although Scotland lost its independence in 1707—temporarily, I hope—it continues to be a sovereign nation and a stateless nation. In Scotland, sovereignty rests with the people, not in the persona of the monarch, as is the case in England. That is why we have had the King or Queen of Scots as opposed to the King or Queen of England. The Crown identity in Scotland is as a representative of the sovereignty of the people, hence the traditional phrase “the community of the realm”. That difference was again seen in the 1680s with the 1688 Bill of Rights in England, but the 1689 Claim of Right in Scotland.
	As illustrated by the Comhairle’s statement, many Scotsmen and women of either an historical bent or, as in my case, Hebridean conditioning view the seas as a continuation of the land. It is perverse that the most democratic forum representing the sovereign Scottish people—the Scottish Parliament—does not have control over the estates of the people’s representative. In many cases, the Crown’s rights date back to the 13th and 14th centuries, and some of these are distinctively Scottish Crown rights with no legal equivalent in the rest of the UK. The Forestry Commission in Scotland used to act on similar lines to the Crown Estate, but its powers have now been devolved to allow it to function as an instrument of Scottish Government policy, which is what we need the Crown Estate to do at the level of local authorities.
	The Crown Estate commission is a property management company that aims not at the public good but unfortunately at the maximum extraction of revenue, as I have seen and previously mentioned. The commission merely administers property rights and interests that comprise the Crown Estate; it does not own the estate. In many cases, it deals with Scottish public land with Crown property rights, which is certainly feudal behaviour. A report by the Crown Estate working group in 2006 stated that there is a stark contrast between
	“the ways in which the public interest in the Crown’s ownership of the seabed and public foreshore could be managed to complement Scottish Executive’s policies designed to support rural, coastal and island communities and the public interest more generally.”
	That group was composed of The Highland council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Orkney Islands council, Shetland Islands council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, Argyll and Bute council, Moray council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
	The group concluded—this is a lengthy but worthwhile quote—that the
	“administration and revenues of some of the property rights of the Crown in Scotland are already devolved to the Scottish Executive. Others which are still managed by the CEC as part of the Crown Estate in Scotland could follow, for example, through the planned UK Marine Bill. In considering the case for a review, some of the lesser property rights of the Crown in Scotland might be seen as historical anachronisms where reform will bring only modest benefits. However, reforming the management of Scotland’s seabed and public foreshore offers an opportunity to secure benefits on what might be considered an historic scale to Scotland’s coastal and island communities and the nation as a whole. The reform of these property rights of the Crown in Scotland could be as symbolic for Scotland as the Scottish Parliament’s abolition of other property rights of the Crown in Scotland with feudal reform. The potential benefits for Scotland in this case, however, would be much more tangible and substantial.”
	We have a serious problem when one of the largest land managers in Scotland is not accountable to the people of Scotland. The Crown Estate commissioners have a major impact on salmon farming, shellfish farming and aquaculture, they derive income from harbours and moorings and they own the entire foreshore around Scotland, yet they have absolutely no legislative duty to speak to the Scottish Parliament. A group with that much power should be accountable to the local communities of Scotland, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer at No. 11 Downing street, which is many miles away.
	Our new clause calls on the Crown Estate commissioners to do what they should be doing anyway. We are seeking that the Crown Estate revenues be devolved to Scotland and that the management of the estate come under the power of the Scots Government. We want the Crown estate to become another Scottish success story, like the NHS and the police, and we want to amend the 1961 Act with new clause 10. We hope to remove the restrictions in the Scotland Act 1998 that prevent the Scottish Government—and by extension the nation, the businesses and the communities, including the islands and coastal communities, of Scotland—from running and directly benefiting from the organisation. It is at best odd that this particular function of the Crown was not devolved immediately, given that Scotland has more than 60% of the UK’s coastline. The Government’s plan for a Crown Estate commissioner do not go far enough, because this person will be accountable to the Treasury, not Scotland—more like a colonial administrator perhaps. The Crown Estate commissioners should operate as a body under Scots law, which is best accomplished by devolving their powers to the Scots Parliament and further to local authorities.
	Before the Committee commences its usual assault on the ability of Scots to govern more than Westminster wants, I want to draw attention to five Liberal Democrat MPs who supported a private Member’s Bill on the subject in 2006, including the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy)—I am sure that they will not have changed their views in the meantime and that government has not softened their strongly held beliefs. In support of the private Member’s Bill, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said:
	“The notion that somebody other than the local community should own the seabed, particularly around our islands, and make money out of it for the Treasury, is quite offensive… The Crown Estate derives significant income from owning something the communities have an absolute need for in terms of piers and harbours, cables, fish farms and now the prospect of offshore windfarms. These are things we can’t do without.”
	In November 2010, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Orkney said:
	“The Scotland Bill provides an opportunity to help coast communities and our aquaculture and marine renewable energy industries. The UK Government should review the Crown Estate’s role in Scotland and look at using the Bill to devolve powers and controls over the seabed.”
	Even a senior Liberal Democrat Whip spoke up when he called on the Secretary of State for Scotland to direct the Crown Estate commissioners to relinquish their
	control of the Scottish seabed to local communities in Scotland. I hope that those words will be followed up with action tonight.
	As the land reformer Andy Wightman has said:
	“We thus now have a position where the Scottish Government supports the return of the administration and revenues of the Crown Estate to Scotland. It is joined by many others including the former Labour Minister of State at the Scotland Office, Brian Wilson, Highland Council, Professor James Hunter CBE, Orkney Islands Council, Lesley Riddoch”—
	the broadcaster—
	“the Scottish Islands Federation, Local People Leading…and Reform Scotland”.
	In 2010, The Highland Council said of this clause:
	“The Highland Council is firmly of the view that Clause 18 of the Scotland Bill does not go far enough. The Council believes that the only way to ensure improved accountability and that direct benefits are delivered to Scottish communities is through fully devolving the management, administration and revenues of the Crown Estate in Scotland to Scottish Ministers in the first instance. Given the new management, regulation and planning roles of Marine Scotland, the case for full devolution is even stronger.”
	Crown Estate lands in Scotland are best managed by the Scots Government. Holyrood’s sole purpose is to look out for the best interests of Scotland. By definition, the UK Parliament must have a different perspective. So far, that has meant cutting coastguards and the armed forces in Scotland and increasing fuel taxes. A Crown Estate that is only accountable to this place is bound to act by that same logic. If the Government truly intend to make the Bill the greatest act of devolution for 300 years, the Scots Government, of whichever party, should entirely run the Crown Estate lands in Scotland. Anything else is utterly unacceptable.

Alan Reid: A lot of what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has said about the Crown Estate is correct. It should be working much more closely with local communities, and coastal communities should be benefitting from the money that the Crown Estate gets from leasing the sea bed and foreshore. My problem with new clause 10 is that it does not tackle section 1(3) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, which reads:
	“It shall be the general duty of the Commissioners, while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land (with such proportion of cash or investments as seems to them to be required for the discharge of their functions), to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management.”
	Problematic in that section are the phrases “to maintain and enhance” its value and the “return obtained from it”. The problem with the new clause is that it does not tackle that section at all. It simply takes the power of direction from the Secretary of State and gives it to a Scottish Minister. It means that the Crown Estate will still have a duty to be a profit-making organisation.

Angus MacNeil: What did the hon. Gentleman want a few years ago?

Alan Reid: I wanted what I still want—the devolution of power to local communities, so that the benefits go to those communities. As I have said, however, new clause 10 does not deliver that, because it does not
	amend the section from the Crown Estate Act 1961. The Secretary of State has powers of direction, which the new clause would transfer to a Scottish Minister rather than to local communities.
	Another problem is the legal advice received by the Government about the operation of section 1(3). When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee on 16 February, he was asked about the Crown Estate. He told us about the legal advice he had received. He said that
	“the power of direction remains a kind of power of last resort if there are some very serious problems with the Crown Estate. The power of direction is not an invitation to the Secretary of State to micro-manage how the Crown Estate operates.”
	By simply transferring that power of last resort to Scottish Ministers, the new clause is not going to achieve anything for local communities in Scotland. We need much more radical reform of how the Crown Estate operates than that.
	A lot of evidence was given to the Calman commission to the effect that the Crown Estate was giving too great a priority to maximising income. That is certainly correct, because the Crown Estate Act 1961 puts that duty on the Crown Estate commissioners. We need a review of the 1961 Act and an amendment to section 1(3). The Scottish Affairs Committee has decided to investigate the operation of the Crown Estate in Scotland, and I hope that out of that will come proposals for reform to allow powers genuinely to be transferred to local communities, so that they also benefit from the lease of the sea bed and the foreshore. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has pointed out, marine renewable projects are likely to go ahead in Scottish waters in the next few years, and I want the income from that to go to the local communities.
	On the income from the Crown Estate, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has said, only 6% of its UK-wide income is generated in Scotland, which would mean Scotland being given only 6% of the Crown Estate’s income. That does not seem to be a particularly good deal in comparison with Scotland’s current share of UK public spending. The important point is that the income, instead of just disappearing into the coffers of the Scottish Government and instead of going into the coffers of the Treasury, should actually go to local communities.

Angus MacNeil: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am sure that many other people will be listening to—and especially looking at—it. For the purpose of clarity, will he outline how he has changed his viewpoint over the past few years on this issue? I hope getting into government is not the reason.

Alan Reid: My viewpoint has not changed. I still want to see the benefits from any developments going to local communities, and I want local communities to be much more involved in the planning stages, so that they can affect any decisions about developments on the sea bed close to their island or coastal community. The point that I am making is that the new clause does not remove the duty on the Crown Estate commissioners to generate revenue for the Treasury. The provision is defective in that regard.

Angus MacNeil: To sum up the hon. Gentleman’s views, then, London is best and control from London is best.

Alan Reid: I have already said umpteen times that I want power devolved to local communities, which the hon. Gentleman’s new clause simply would not achieve. I would have thought that in Argyll and Bute, as much as in the Western Isles, Edinburgh is not seen as part of the local community. The money would simply be transferred from the Treasury to Edinburgh. It is not going to help those local communities, and it will not even help the Scottish budget, which would benefit from only 6% of the income, which is less than Scotland’s current share of UK public expenditure, as I have pointed out.
	The ownership of the sea bed and the Crown Estate’s management of it impacts on many remote communities, which often have fragile economies and their own local culture. One fundamental policy of the Government is the principle of localism, and I would like to see the Government implement that principle with regard to the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate must become much more democratically accountable to the communities where it operates, and it must work much more closely with local communities in the planning stages of any developments, which must benefit those local communities —for example, by making improvements to harbours and other local infrastructure or using the profits from the rent of the sea bed to set up funds for the benefit of the local community.
	I am sorry that I cannot support the new clause. As I have said, it is defective, because it does not touch section 1(3) of the Crown Estate Act 1961. Given the importance accorded by the Government to the localism agenda, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us later that the Government have plans for the Crown Estate in that regard.

Ann McKechin: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) has carefully explained some of the technical problems with the new clause. What it proposes was not a recommendation made by the Holyrood Committee in its report last week. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute made an important point when he said that devolution is not simply a one-way process from the UK Government to the Scottish Government, but is also about transfers of power from central Government—whether based in London or Edinburgh—to bring about more localised control. It is about not only having powers, but how those powers are going to be used and made accountable to local communities.
	It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has raised the issue of the Forestry Commission. It was his party’s Administration in Holyrood, of course, who were the first to propose privatisation of Forestry Commission land. Thankfully, there was a successful public campaign in Scotland—just as we recently saw in England—which forced the Scottish Government to reverse their policy. I note from recent reports, however, that they are continuing to sell off much more forestry land than they are purchasing from the Forestry Commission. That brings us back to the question of how powers are used. The Opposition will not support the new clause, but we hope to come back to this matter with our own amendments on Report.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry not to be able to support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is in many ways a walking advertisement for the Union. It would be a great loss to this Parliament if he were not here and were prevented from coming here by a division between our two great countries. I am deeply concerned about his new clause. It is partly creeping republicanism, partly an attack on property and partly a subsidy to Scotland from the poor, hard-done-by English taxpayer, who has had enough of this and wants a little bit of money to creep back south of the border from time to time.
	Let me start with that sad day in March 1603, when our beloved sovereign of blessed memory, Elizabeth, died. When she died, James VI was hailed as James I of England, and we saw a mystical union of the Crowns: a mystical union that has remained true through not only world wars but civil wars, and has brought our people together. We have come together as peoples in the Crown, and as a result of a further development in the Act of Union 1707, we have come together as a Crown in Parliament. Anything that attacks the Crown, that undermines the Crown, is something about which we, representing one part of the Crown in Parliament—one part of the great system of government that we have—should always be careful.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman’s history lesson is very interesting, but I am not sure why he sees the new clause as an attack on the Crown. The Crown Estate’s money does not go to the Crown; it goes to the Treasury. It was signed over to the Treasury many years ago in exchange for the civil list. The new clause attacks not the Crown but the way in which the money is used, and is intended to secure a better deal for our coastal communities.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for an extremely helpful intervention. It missed a key point. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may wish his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to withdraw his new clause.
	The Crown Estate’s income was not given away in perpetuity in exchange for the civil list; it is given reign by reign. That started in the time of George III, who was a bit hard up at the time. He needed the money. Parliament had, and of course still has, tax-raising powers. In exchange for the Crown Estate’s income, George III accepted the civil list. That continued during the reigns of George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria, Edward VII and George V, the brief reign of Edward VIII and the reign of George VI, and it continues during the reign of our present most glorious sovereign. However, it is not a permanent settlement.
	Any step that undermines or changes the Crown Estate should be taken with the greatest caution. I hope that the day never comes, but if we were to have another sovereign, that sovereign would be entitled to claim the Crown Estate for himself. If we had introduced measures that took it away, we would have broken the bargain that was made in the reign of George III and has been renewed in subsequent reigns. We should be extremely wary of interfering with a system that has worked so well.
	I also want to deal with the attack on property rights, which are the fundamental basis of a free society and the rule of law. I know that some hon. Members like me
	to dwell on history occasionally. We know that rights of property have been established in this country since 1189—

Stewart Hosie: Which country?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This country, England, which is where we are now. Those rights of property, established in this country, England, were passed to Scotland by virtue of the Act of Union. It is well established that the combination of Parliaments that resulted in the inheritor Parliament—this Parliament—merged the benefits of the two earlier Parliaments. The rights of property that we enjoy are the foundation of our free society.

Ann McKechin: I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society of Scotland. Scotland has always had a very distinct property law system. It was the first in the world to involve a public register, and it remains distinct to this day.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I entirely accept that Scotland has its distinct characteristics. They are, in many ways, extraordinarily admirable and worthy, and they have the full support of those who support the Union. We do not want an homogenised United Kingdom. I have never been a great believer in homogenisation, whether it be of cultures, nations or, for that matter, milk. However, it is important to recognise the rights of property. The new clause seeks to confiscate the revenue that would come to the Crown Estate and take it for local communities—whoever they may be.

Alan Reid: The new clause does not do that. It merely transfers the power of direction of the Crown Estate from the Secretary of State for Scotland to a Scottish Minister, and that is why I consider it defective. It does not take the property that is in the seabed and give it to local communities.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and he made clear that his intention was to undermine the rights of property. That is why the new clause is so dangerous. The money that comes from any wind farms that may be established offshore in Scotland belongs to the Crown Estate, and the Crown Estate’s income is used for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom. To pinch it and say “We will have it for Na h-Eileanan an Iar”—or for some similar part of the country, or for communities within Na h-Eileanan an Iar—would, in my view, be wholly inappropriate, and would constitute a fundamental attack on the property rights of the Crown Estate.
	Once one attacks the property rights of the Crown Estate, whose property rights will one not attack? If one attacks the property rights of the highest in the land, what protection will there be for anyone else? What protection will there be for the person in his humble cottage? If one attacks the Crown, the person in his humble cottage will feel the threat. He will feel the hot breath of rapacious socialism bearing down upon him. He will feel not the least bit safe on the land that he owns.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinary speech. I have received an e-mail from a colleague who has been watching it and who describes it as “epic”. It certainly is, in an 1842 kind of way.
	However, I have a question for the hon. Gentleman. He talks of “rapacious socialism” and of the seizing of land. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into being after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, allows those on estates to buy the land on which they live. Would he wish it to be repealed to protect what he views as the property rights that he is defending?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Had I been a Member of Parliament at the time, I would have opposed leasehold reform. I thought that it was an outrageous attack on property rights, and I would have taken the same view had I been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I think that property rights are of overwhelming importance, and that the new clause is genuinely dangerous in seeking to undermine them.
	As I was saying, my three reasons for opposing the new clause are the attack on property rights, the attack on the Crown—that mystical union of Crowns that we have had since 1603—and the loss of revenue for the English. I feel that I must stand up for the people of North East Somerset. They do not benefit from as much spending per capita on the health service, the police or education as those north of the border. I accept that, because I believe in the Union and I think it a price worth paying, but the price must be fair. The revenues that are ultimately the revenues of the state must come centrally, and must be shared out proportionately. When the Scots start asking “Why do we not have Crown Estate revenue for the territory and the sea around Scotland?”, I may respond by asking why people living in London do not say “We will have the revenues from the Crown Estate in London, and we will not allow any subsidy to be given to Scotland.” That, I think, would make the Scots rather upset. A good deal more money comes from places such as Pall Mall, which is owned by the Crown, than from the seashore.

Angus MacNeil: I had not taken the hon. Gentleman to be a fan of Scottish independence. I will clearly have to review that, given his latest utterances.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I said earlier that I was against Scottish independence, because if we had it we would not benefit from such helpful and informative interventions as the one that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman.

Alan Reid: I think that the hon. Gentleman has miscalculated. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr McNeil) is being principled. He believes in Scottish independence. Transferring the Crown Estate in its entirety would be disadvantageous to Scotland, because only 6% of the profits are generated there. That is less than Scotland’s current share of public expenditure. The new clause ought to appeal to the hon. Gentleman in financial terms.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that those of us who support the Union are also being principled. These tax revenues—these forms that generate income for the
	state—must be preserved in their entirety. Once we start cutting them up bit by bit, we end up making calculations and saying “Actually, Scotland is receiving rather too little from the Crown Estate rather than too much.” I do not think that that argument works. I think that the Crown Estate must be viewed as a whole, as an indivisible part of an indivisible Crown. That is what I want to see: the traditional constitutional position which this country has enjoyed and which has made it such a great nation. Let us have no more attacks on private property or the indivisibility of the Crown, and let us have a reasonable settlement in taxation between the people of England and the people of Scotland, not to mention those of Northern Ireland and Wales, who also deserve their fair share of the total pie of economic wealth.

David Mundell: I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I am afraid that our debates on matters Scottish tend to become somewhat homogenous, and it is good to have a different perspective on our deliberations. It was also good to hear again about the threat of the hot breath of rapacious socialism and the harm that it can do in Scotland, because we need to hear that. As we near the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, I will urge my colleagues to do their best to repel that threat.
	My hon. Friend’s contribution was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who again sped through his speech, which was simply a recounting of the usual dogma. Instead of making a coherent case, he simply said that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Scotland because everything should be devolved to Scotland.
	Those of us who have been present in the Chamber throughout the deliberations on this Bill noted yet again the strong divergence between what we have come to know as London SNP and Edinburgh SNP. Although the hon. Gentleman launched an attack on the Crown Estate, none other than Jim Mather, SNP Energy Minister in Scotland, has said that the Scottish Government
	“greatly value the strong working relationship with the Crown estate commissioners as it helps us all to ensure that Scotland leads the UK in giving wave and tidal energy developers opportunities to harness the power of our seas.”
	The characterisation of the Crown Estate by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was therefore misleading. Although I take on board the points that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made about the operation of the Crown Estate, and acknowledge that he is a doughty campaigner for change to the estate, I am afraid that I do not recognise the characterisation of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. As he knows, the Secretary of State has sought to engage with the Crown Estate, and the estate has moved forward in a number of positive ways, such as through the production of its annual report, and the meetings it has with Scottish Ministers, MSPs, Scottish local authorities and many interest groups.
	However, although there are positive aspects to the development of the Crown Estate, the Government recognise that a number of issues have been raised during the progress of the Scotland Bill and following the Calman deliberations, which is why we look in particular to the Scottish Parliament LCM Committee report, which stated that it had identified a number of
	radical options for the future development of the Crown Estate but that time was needed to consider them. We agree with the Committee when it says that it noted with some interest that the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons will review the work of the Crown Estate commissioners in Scotland, and that that was an important development. The Secretary of State for Scotland’s positive attitude to this initiative was also noted. That sums up the Government’s position. We greatly welcome the inquiry that the Scottish Affairs Committee has said that it will carry out into the operation of the Crown Estate in Scotland. That will present an opportunity for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others who have strong views about the Crown Estate to set them out, and the Government will look closely at the outcome of that inquiry.
	What we will not do is respond favourably to dogma and to a view that the Crown Estate should simply be devolved for the sake of doing so. Although I have no hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar will do so, I ask him to withdraw the motion for his new clause.

Angus MacNeil: I noted that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said that coastal communities should benefit, but I was told earlier by a Liberal Democrat that they would look to mess about with a pretended technicality. Unfortunately, that is the usual stance of the Liberal Democrats: on the one hand it is not enough, yet on the other hand it is too much, and the upshot is that they want to leave it all with London. They will be judged in Scotland, so at least we will probably all be saved from having to listen to their pious words for years to come. In short, their position is that London is best, helping local communities is not on their agenda, and they will be voting for the status quo. Highlanders will know what to do at the May elections: sweep the Liberal Democrats away at the ballot box. Both the hon. Gentleman and Labour talk about local communities, but do nothing about that.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), whom I have great respect for and like personally, pronounces Na h-Eileanan an Iar very well. He did so not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times. All I can say is he must have had a very good teacher. I should tell him, however, that Crown rights in Scotland long predate George III.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: For the benefit of the Committee, I should say that the hon. Gentleman himself was my teacher.

Angus MacNeil: I accept any accolades coming my way.
	I should also point out to the hon. Gentleman that this new clause contains no republican agenda whatever. In fact, ideas of republicanism were not anywhere near the front, let alone the back, of my mind when I was framing it and making my speech. The new clause addresses the difficulties facing local communities; it is not an attack on property rights in Scotland, and the issue addressed here extends further than the Union of the Crowns, as I have said. Those property rights could be abolished by the Scottish Parliament. It has the powers to do that, although it would be what has been described as the nuclear option. These property rights are controlled by the Scottish Parliament, and they could be gone.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Scottish Parliament already has those powers. He has not responded to what I said earlier about section 1(3) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, however. The hon. Gentleman says his new clause will do great things for highland communities, but how is transferring the 6% of the profits of the Crown Estate from London to Edinburgh going to benefit local communities?

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has been living in Scotland long enough to know that Ministers in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament are far more susceptible to pressure from communities in Scotland than the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at No. 11 Downing street.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset will not be surprised to learn that I am no great fan of the 1707 Union, but I am quite relaxed about the 1603 Union and the maintenance of Her Majesty as the Queen. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) put it to me that Scotland does indeed have a king and his name is Kenny, but that is a little beside the point. I am happy to maintain the Crown, as Canada, Australia and New Zealand do. My point is about the movement of powers from Westminster to the most democratic forum representing Scotland, which is the Scottish Parliament—that is the right way to proceed.

Jim McGovern: The hon. Gentleman says that he has no wish for his contribution to be viewed as republicanism. What are his views on republicanism?

Angus MacNeil: I think it works quite well in America, Ireland and France—

Gregory Campbell: It does not work well in Ireland.

Angus MacNeil: I should have known that someone from the economic powerhouse that is Northern Ireland was sitting behind me—I say that with irony.
	Unfortunately, the Minister indulges in the usual slurs and dogma, and he is wrong in some of his assertions. He said nothing about helping communities; he tried to pin all this on some sort of political agenda in the Scottish National party. The new clause is not about that; it is about the powers people need to affect the day-to-day occurrences in their communities and around their islands. Tonight, people will see past the words of certain politicians.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus MacNeil: No. I do not know when we last had a vote on this, but tonight’s vote will enable people to make many judgments for years to come. We will judge this for years to come.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 8, Noes 448.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Time

‘In Schedule 5, section L, subsection L5 of the 1998 Act the words “, time zones and the subject matter of the Summer Time Act 1972.” are deleted.’.—(Mr MacNeil.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Angus MacNeil: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	This is my third speech of the evening and I plan not to take too much time about it. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) asked whether we could have the past five hours back. For most of that I blame the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), who took up more than half that time.
	My ongoing dispute with the assignation of time in the UK is firmly on record, with three speeches in Hansard over the past few years. It is my intention with the new clause to put an end to my shouting at the sun that happens periodically in this place. The new clause has more to do with how we deal with the amount of sunlight that we have in Scotland and how that relates to time. It deals with any changes to the clocks in the UK.
	As anyone north of Manchester knows, the northern part of the island known as Great Britain and the islands to the west and the north of Great Britain are subject to very odd sunlight patterns at times, owing to our longitude and latitude and the alignment of our islands. We have very different periods of daylight in the UK, both summer and winter. Our winter days are short, with sunrise not happening till 9 am, so we must be able to adjust our clocks for the best use of time. Over the past few centuries, politicians have been bringing forward proposals to address the issue, with the most recent proposal occurring in this Parliament as a private Member’s Bill, when the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) demonstrated that there is still a drive to change the clocks unilaterally.
	At present, 65% of Scots are against changing the clocks, according to a YouGov survey in February 2010. However, if fewer than 300 MPs at Westminster voted to change the clocks in the UK, those MPs would
	change the lives of millions. The Government can make these changes and the Scots Parliament has no redress. It has been and will continue to be argued that it will be impossible for someone in Scotland to call someone in England because of the time difference, which is bunkum, or that it will not be possible to take a train, because it is beyond the capability of the human mind for someone to adjust their watch by an hour—again, bunkum. I have faith that everyone can adapt to the slightest change.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman has changed his position from the one that he took in the debate on 26 January 2007 on the Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill, when he said:
	“Unfortunately, we cannot go down the two time zones route. . . We cannot have two different time zones in the UK.”
	When pressed by some amazed MPs, the hon. Gentleman repeated that
	“we cannot operate two time zones”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1733.]
	He said a third time in that debate that he could not support two time zones in the UK, but his new clause would allow precisely that. I wonder why he has changed his position.

Angus MacNeil: My position has not changed. The point of the new clause is to make sure that nothing is foisted on Scotland. It will also put the brakes on any attempt to introduce two time zones.

Sheila Gilmore: No one is more against the proposal to change the time zones than I am, because I lived through the previous experiment and it was awful. However, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want two time zones, but if his new clause was accepted and the UK Parliament voted to change the hours, the effect would be just that—two time zones.

Angus MacNeil: My new clause would make it unlikely—or even impossible—that a time change could be foisted on the people of Scotland, because of people’s fear of having a change in time zones.
	More astute Members will know that my new clause does not call for a separate Scottish time zone. What I am saying is that if the UK Government make a decision regarding time systems, the Scots Parliament should have the right to make the best choice for Scotland. That is not a revolutionary or novel suggestion: the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont has that power, as does the Parliament of the Isle of Man. I note that they have not yet changed their time systems, even though they have the right to do so to address the needs of the people of Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man. The Scottish Government should have the same powers.

Alan Beith: My constituency would be significantly affected if there was a different time zone just down the road from Berwick-upon-Tweed. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that in many ways he would make it easier for the UK Government, looking at the matter from an English point of view, to create a time system that was unwelcome in Scotland, because English MPs could say, “Well, Scotland can do what it likes. We’re doing what’s best
	for England”? With the large of number of English MPs, he might finish up with precisely the results that he most fears.

Angus MacNeil: I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the realpolitik of the situation would make that highly unlikely. It is far more likely that something that the Scottish people did not want would be foisted on them.

Frank Roy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if his new clause won the day, there would be a far greater possibility of two time zones?

Angus MacNeil: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he prefers the possibility of a time zone that the Scots do not want being foisted on them to having two different time zones in the UK. I would prefer the Scots to be able to control their own time zone to the possibility of something being foisted on them, so that they had the same power as the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont and the people of the Isle of Man.

Mark Lazarowicz: I genuinely do not understand how the hon. Gentleman has changed his position from the one that he took in 2007. His new clause would not give Scotland a veto power; it would give it the power to decide on time zones and the subject matter of the Summer Time Act 1972. He is bringing the possibility of having two different time zones closer, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) pointed out. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would not give Scotland a veto power, and if that is what he wants, why has he not tabled a new clause that would?

Angus MacNeil: The question of a veto goes both ways. I would not seek to veto what the good people of England might want to do, but they would be far less likely to do it, given the realpolitik of the situation, if the people entering the argument on both sides had that power. I am seeking to give the Scots Parliament the same authority as Stormont—an Assembly that seems to have a number of dispensations, including on corporation tax and, in this case, time—and the Isle of Man.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, first, that this was not a power that was specifically sought by the Assembly at Stormont? Secondly, the freedom that he seeks through the new clause implies the ability to exercise it. However, I cannot think of anyone in Northern Ireland who would wish to exercise it, for all the reasons that have been given so far, the main one being the disruption to movement between the two parts of the United Kingdom.

Angus MacNeil: It may or may not be a power that people in Northern Ireland wish to exercise, but it is a power that they have. It would probably not be a power that anyone would choose to exercise in Scotland either, but it would certainly make the Scottish hand an awful lot stronger in any negotiations with Westminster, as the complexion of the Government changed over time. What I would ask the hon. Gentleman is whether he would wish to surrender that power to Westminster or whether he would keep it.

Sammy Wilson: I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland would give two hoots whether the power was surrendered or not, because if we are never going to exercise it, why would we worry about losing or gaining it?

Angus MacNeil: I say to the hon. Gentleman, tongue in cheek, that it is “Maybe surrender” from the DUP.
	The point is not about using that power, but about the authority that comes from having it. It is about having that club in the golf bag or in the locker. That speaks to a wider problem with devolution: the UK Parliament can potentially take damaging action against a nation of the Union, but that nation’s Parliament or Assembly has, in the main, no redress and must accept the action. This might sound a bit drastic, but the way the Scotland Act is designed ensures that the UK Government, for better or worse, have unilateral power to make substantial decisions for the entire UK, regardless of what another part of the UK thinks.
	Of course, Members should be reminded that “UK Government” does not mean this Parliament, as we saw with the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which affected 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters, as was mentioned earlier. I understand that the current Government are not committed to changing the clocks, but I would sleep much better at night if we could ensure that a clock change would have to be agreed by the Scots Parliament and that we had that power in Scotland before it took effect. It speaks volumes that the opposition to independence, and even to full fiscal autonomy or control over time, is full of the politics of fear.

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus MacNeil: No, you’re fine.
	If the Government and the Unionist parties truly believe that this is an economic arrangement that is in the best interests of the people who live in the islands, they have nothing to fear by giving Scotland control over clocks, coastguards, elections and fiscal autonomy—the whole gamut. There is usually nothing but dogma blocking good sense.

Iain Stewart: It is with a heavy heart that I rise to oppose the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I hope my pronunciation is acceptable. As he mentioned, we had an interesting debate on the private Member’s Bill on daylight savings before Christmas. He and I, along with an eclectic mix of Members, went into the No Lobby to oppose it. I agree with him about the effects that central European time or double summer time, whatever we call it, would have on Scotland, on other parts of the UK and on various categories of workers in different industries. I am at one with him on that and have great sympathy with his motives, but I cannot agree with the methodology he uses to arrive at his conclusions. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who noted that the new clause, if successful, would make it easier for the House to approve a move to central European time or double summer time and that we would end up with two time zones in the UK.
	Before moving on to some of the practical difficulties that such a move would entail, I caution the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar against opening up head L5 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, because along with
	“Timescales, time zones and the subject-matter of the Summer Time Act 1972”,
	a host of other matters are reserved, including
	“The calendar; units of time; the date of Easter”.
	We are already in enough trouble with Cardinal Keith O’Brien about other matters before we start tinkering with the date of Easter, so I urge some caution in going down that route.
	As Members have explained, it would be hugely impractical to have different time zones within the UK. Other countries, of course, do have different time zones: Australia has four, Canada has six and Russia has eight. However, Australia is 2.9 million square miles in size, Canada 3.8 million square miles and Russia 6.6 million square miles. The UK is 94,000 square miles in size. To have different time zones in a relatively small geographic area is ludicrous. I can think of all sorts of practical difficulties that that would entail, particularly for people living in areas on either side of the border. People in Carlisle and Dumfries, for example, would have all sorts of problems adjusting their clocks as they went back and forward over the border. Would “News at Ten” be subject to the Trades Description Act if it did not broadcast as “News at Ten (but Nine o’clock in Scotland)”?

Ian Davidson: If there had been a different time, would the news of the Barnsley by-election result have arrived sometime in the middle of the morning?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman mentions an important reason why we should resist such a measure. I recall his state of excitement and sleeplessness as he awaited the result, and he might have had to wait a little longer to receive the information that he sought.

Ian Davidson: Is it not possible that I might have heard the Barnsley by-election result before the polls had closed in Barnsley?

Joe Benton: Order. I think we have heard enough about the Barnsley by-election. Can we please come back to new clause 11?

Iain Stewart: I certainly shall, Mr Benton. The hon. Gentleman tempted me down an interesting path.
	Members who were present yesterday when we debated clause 26, which relates to the definition of a Scottish taxpayer, might recall our discussions about how to define a Scottish taxpayer based on their place of residence at the end of the day. I expressed some concern for my friend who would be travelling on the Caledonian sleeper and mentioned the uncertainty that would arise if he boarded the train in Glasgow or Edinburgh at, say, 10.30 pm and was in Scotland at the end of the day as far as that was concerned, but the train crossed the border at midnight. I asked, would he be in Scotland or England for tax purposes? We would now add in a different time zone.

Michael Weir: I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman’s friend would be terrified of taking the Eurostar to France.

Iain Stewart: The devolution of tax powers to Normandy or Brittany is slightly outwith the scope of this Bill, so I will not risk the ire of Mr Benton by going down that route.
	If there were a different time zone and England were an hour behind Scotland, my friend could board the train in Glasgow before midnight and arrive in England before midnight, so goodness knows what tax status he would incur for that journey. We often hear of the Bermuda triangle, but I do not want to introduce a Beattock triangle.

Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman think that arriving before one sets off is a contradiction of the general law of relativity?

Iain Stewart: I am grateful for that information. Unfortunately I ceased to study physics after higher grade, so I am not qualified to go down that route.
	The example I cite is perhaps slightly silly but there is a sensible point. It illustrates the practical difficulties that would arise if we had different time zones in a small geographical area. Although I am at one with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar in opposing the introduction of central European time or any other Europeanisation of our time in this country, I must reluctantly oppose the new clause. I urge him and other Opposition Members to continue to oppose any moves in this place to introduce such a time zone in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Russell Brown: I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) mentioned something that is not a pastime of every Scot, despite what some people might think. It relates to drinking hours and what would happen if we operated in two different time zones.
	I think back to many years ago when the pubs in Scotland used to close at 10 pm, whereas in Carlisle and in Cumbria, on the border, they closed at 11. We saw people walking down the road at 10 o’clock closing in Scotland and heading for the first hotel to partake of their pastime in Cumbria, so the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) needs to be very careful.

Angus MacNeil: My new clause does not call for two time zones. Having lived in Gretna, I should like to know how long it would take me to walk from there to Carlisle for a pint. I suggest that it would be more than an hour, and that the bars would be closed by the time I got there.

Russell Brown: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have moved on: we now have trains, buses and taxis, so people would not necessarily walk.
	I want to get back to the debate on the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, because I want the House to have time to debate new clause 19 as well. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal was ludicrous; I would go further and say that it is sheer lunacy. In January 2007, the
	Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo). Many Members might have considered supporting it, but for the fact that it contained a nasty clause that gave the devolved Administrations the opportunity to opt out. I ask the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and others who support his proposal to consider how the drivers in a small haulage business based in two locations—let us say Carlisle and Dumfries—would manage the tachograph when moving from one side of the border to the other.
	The new clause makes no sense whatever. I hope that, rather than dividing the Committee on the proposal, the hon. Gentleman will see sense. His proposal would make it more likely that we would end up with two different time zones. I urge him to withdraw the new clause.

Fiona O'Donnell: I will make my contribution brief as well, although I shall not speak at quite the same speed as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). He reminded me of a child who needed to go to the toilet as he delivered his speech so terribly quickly. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that he had risen to speak with a heavy heart. I am rising with a sore head, and that is not just about the sleep deprivation that I mentioned earlier. It is because I honestly cannot understand what possessed the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to table this new clause. He cannot bring a proposal before the Committee and then not want us to discuss its possible implications. He cannot tell us what any Scottish Government, even his own, might choose to do with such powers, given that he voted against the sell-off of the forests in England while his Government tried to sell off the forests in Scotland. It is essential that we scrutinise the implications of the new clause. It exposes the fact that the SNP is good at minority reports and at gesture politics, but not good at government.

Eilidh Whiteford: I will take entirely personally the hon. Lady’s positive comment about minority reports. I took part in a debate on the issue of time zones a few months ago, and I was struck by the strength of feeling among many Government Members who represent English constituencies who would really like to see the time zones in this country change. My worry is that that would plunge my constituents into darkness on winter mornings, meaning that they would have to contend not only with icy roads and low temperatures but with limited amounts of sunlight. A Scottish Government would have no room in any negotiations on that matter, should a Government in this place choose to impose a change to the existing arrangements. As I understand it, the whole point of my hon. Friend’s new clause is to strengthen the likelihood of maintaining the existing arrangements, not to undermine them.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am still struggling to follow this argument. The SNP is asking for a power that it says it has no intention of using because the effects would be undesirable. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar seemed to say that, should the time zone change here, he would recommend that the Scottish Government fell in line with such a decision as he had no intention of having two different time zones. It has already been pointed out that we are far more likely to end up with two time zones if we devolve this power. It would be easier for such a decision to be taken simply on the basis of taking English concerns into account.

Frank Roy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to have two time zones in the United Kingdom is to vote for the new clause?

Fiona O'Donnell: Absolutely; I could not have put it more simply. My headache immediately disappears and we have clarity.
	There are some questions that I would like the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to address. First, has he spoken to Microsoft or other PC manufacturers about their systems and whether they would be able to cope with this change? Has he considered the implications for travel? It is possible that I could leave my constituency and be in this place before I had left. I wonder how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority would respond to time travel and thinking that I came to this place in a Tardis. We have already heard about television and radio schedules. These are serious concerns, and they are the implications of what he is asking for. We might get the 10 o’clock news at 9 o’clock or 11 o’clock, we might know the results of the national lottery draw in Scotland before it is made in England. I have seen SNP Members holding their heads in their hands as we put forward these various possibilities, but if the hon. Gentleman is going to push the Committee to vote on this matter, he has to consider the ramifications.
	Let us be clear about this: the SNP is no good in government in Holyrood, is no good in government in local authority areas, and in this Chamber it is putting forward a most ridiculous proposal that I hope the Committee will oppose.

Thomas Docherty: I want to make two observations based on an example taken from either side of the Committee. Under this proposal, the Minister from the Scotland Office could be taken in his Government car from his very nice house in Moffat down to Carlisle and then go back in time an hour to catch a train that had left Carlisle an hour earlier.

Angus MacNeil: I think that the hon. Gentleman, along with other Members, is confusing the instruments we use to measure time—clocks—with time itself.

Thomas Docherty: I think that the hon. Gentleman’s time is up.
	Alternatively, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) could leave his house, travel the 12 miles to Carlisle train station, and find that he is catching a train an hour earlier than he left his house. That is ludicrous.

Michael Weir: I am puzzled by this obsession with train times. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that for many years Switzerland, in the centre of Europe, had a different time zone from all the countries round about, and had trains going through on both sides? They did not vanish into thin air—they went in one end and came out the other. There is no problem about measuring time; this is utter nonsense.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman takes me back to our debate on the railways. It might be helpful to certain Members to know that the railways are the reason we have a unified time zone across the United Kingdom. Up until the Victorian era, which certain
	Members clearly wish to drag us back to, there were different time zones in the west country, for example, from those in East Anglia. That was a ludicrous way to run a transport system, and that is why this is a mad idea from a fairly mad individual.
	The other logistical issue touches on the point made earlier about Barnsley. In a general election, there could not be any exit polls or opening of ballot boxes until every area’s voting had closed at 10 o’clock. The people of Scotland would have voted from 7 am until 10 pm, according to their time, but in England it would have taken place from 6 am until 9 pm, so we would have to wait another hour before the opening of the ballot boxes, which brings us back to the debate about telling on the following day.
	That goes to the heart of the fact that this is a nonsensical argument from a party that is trying to get independence. All SNP Members’ arguments about other countries arise from the fact that they cannot win the debate at the ballot box. They are going to be beaten in May harder than certain people were beaten in Barnsley last month, and this is another of their back-door efforts that should be rejected out of hand.

Joe Benton: Order. For the record, I do not think that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to declare the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) mad.

Ian Davidson: I will start with a question. If the new clause is passed and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) goes to the other place, will that make him a time Lord? I hope that he presses the matter to a vote, because I can think of nothing that characterises the SNP more than this proposal for separate time zones.
	As far as I can see, there are only two ways in which this new clause can operate. If the United Kingdom Parliament decides to change the time, it would give the Scottish Parliament the opportunity not to do so, in which case there would be separate time zones. Alternatively, the Scottish Parliament could decide to change the time on its own without the United Kingdom Parliament doing so, in which case there would be separate time zones. I see no logic for giving this power to the Scottish Parliament, except if one wants separate time zones. It is ludicrous.
	The comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) are key in this argument. The new clause would make it much more likely that this Parliament, with an overwhelming majority of English Members, would vote for what suited it and leave the Scots to either follow or not. That would undermine the position of Scottish MPs in representing their constituents’ interests in this place. The proposal is absolutely and utterly absurd.
	We must also take into account what I consider to be the al-Megrahi argument. Part of the reason for the release of al-Megrahi was simply to show that the Scottish Parliament could do it. It had a power and wanted to show that it could use it, so it did. Giving the
	Scottish Parliament the power to change the clocks would present it with a strong temptation to do it just to show that it could, and to drive as big a wedge as possible between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a very real danger.
	We should consider what sort of time difference the SNP would want. I think that it would probably go for something like—

Russell Brown: A century.

Ian Davidson: Perhaps it would be a century, but I think that it would be just under an hour and a quarter. In that way, when it was noon by Greenwich mean time, it would be about 13.14 in Scotland. Scotland would constantly be on Bannockburn time. I think that the concept of Bannockburn time is what the nationalists are after: “Here’s tae us, wha’s like us. A lot of them are deid now right enough, but we do actually remember them.” This proposal is simply about seeking division for its own sake.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was very helpful in reminding us that schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 covers more matters than just time. It also covers the calendar. I am sure that the idea of a public holiday on Alex Salmond’s birthday will be a recommendation from the SNP. We have had the Julian calendar and a variety of different calendars. A nationalist calendar is the logical consequence. Why should an independent country be stuck with the same calendar as England? There are logical arguments for that, but the SNP is not the party of logical arguments; it is the party of passion, of Bannockburn and of “Here’s tae us, let’s be separate.”
	I think that there is a real difficulty in all of this. I very much hope that the SNP does not chicken out here. I hope that it puts the new clause to the vote so that we can see just how ludicrous its proposals are, and the extent to which it is treating the Scotland Bill as nothing more than a joke. We are trying to improve the governance of Scotland; the SNP is trying to create divisions. The proposal to have separate time zones is absurd.

David Mundell: I am starting to be very concerned about the extent to which I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). Indeed, the hon. Member for the Western Isles has done something remarkable this evening—he has led me to agree 100% with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), which is a very rare occurrence. I could not have put it better—the new clause is sheer lunacy, and Members on both sides of the Chamber have set out why.
	It is important to reflect on the findings of the Calman commission, which highlighted the importance of cross-border institutions and functions of the UK Government that bind the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK in a “social union”. It stated its view that a consistent British isles time zone was an important aspect of that. Of course, the SNP wants to destroy that social union. As has been said in the debate, having two separate time zones in the UK is one way in which it would seek to do so.
	I think it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) who pointed out the contradiction in the position of the hon. Member for
	Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who has spoken passionately against any proposal to change the time, but who has now tabled a new clause that makes the change that he says he opposes much more likely.
	From the outset, this Government have said that they would not consider adopting single/double summertime, central European time or any variation on them without the agreement of all nations of the UK. The Prime Minister has been unequivocal in stating that having different times operating concurrently in the UK is not an option. On Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made clear the Government’s opposition to the Bill. Additionally, as the hon. Member for the Western Isles will be aware, at the time of the publication of the UK Government’s tourism strategy on 4 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), reiterated the Government’s commitment that no change to current policy would happen without the approval of the whole UK.
	Were the new clause to be accepted, Scotland would have the power to determine its own time zone. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, that would give the Scottish Parliament the capacity to make a change just for the sake of being different. The contribution to the debate that I thought was most illustrative was the one from Northern Ireland, from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He indicated that although the power in question was available there, nobody would wish to use it. That brings us back to the dogma of the SNP in making proposals, as I have said before, either because it sees them as a way of breaking up the UK or simply for the sake of having power.
	If Scotland were to have a different time zone from the rest of the home nations, daily transactions between Scotland and the rest of the British Isles would take on an unwanted added complexity. Importantly, it could put Scotland at an economic disadvantage. It could certainly disadvantage my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and the Secretary of State for Scotland, which should not be countenanced.
	The new clause would be detrimental to the Union between the people of Scotland and those of the rest of the UK, which is clearly why it was tabled. It runs contrary to the spirit and effect of the Bill and the views of the Calman commission, which put at the heart of its work the retention of the United Kingdom. Anyone who has a commitment to retaining the UK should oppose the new clause.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pronounced my constituency name well, putting the Minister to shame—I note again that he referred to my constituency by its old name.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South and I agree on many things, and have together worked to fight off the forces of darkness who are trying to force central European time on us—they call it Churchill time, but we call it Chamberlain time, because it is definitely appeasement. He can rest assured that the
	date of Easter will remain the first Sunday after the first full moon after the equinox, which perhaps brings me neatly to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). He is not keen on Bannockburn time, but I wondered whether he was working on moon time given some of his interventions and suggestions.
	I am calling not for the time zone to change, but for the power to ameliorate if London makes a change. We in Scotland want to keep the time as it is. The danger is that London will foist something on Scotland that we do not want. The new clause is about giving the power to Scotland.

Alan Reid: The Minister gave the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Government have said that there will be no change unless all four countries of the UK agree.

Angus MacNeil: That is very useful, but we do not know how long the Government will stand. How long will the Liberals and Tories remain in this embrace? We know that one Government do not bind another, and certainly that one Parliament does not bind another. This Government will probably not even bind themselves for much longer, but who knows? We want to give Scotland the power that Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man have.
	The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) has moved from what might once have been called rapacious socialism to a great concern for Microsoft—with not so much concern for the darkness of her constituents. Could Microsoft cope with the new clause? Yes, I think it could.
	The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) seemed to be happy for the time difference to be foisted upon us and for us not to have a say. Many countries throughout the European continent—there are about 50—including small countries, have such a power. They choose to work together, but they feel that it is better to have the club in their bag. They find stability in that. There is instability here because Members from the south of England are ganging up and, because of amnesia of the last 30 or 40 years, changing the time zone on us.
	I have a note here on the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—it says simply that I am disappointed in him. It is more likely that we would have different time zones in Europe if different countries did not have such a power. People tend to work together, but we should ensure that everybody has the same thing to take to the table. If we do not give Scotland this power, and if the time zone changes and we want to keep it as it is, the guilty will be all around us.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 6, Noes 439.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ian Davidson: On a point of order, Mr Evans. Has it been established that all Members were aware of the time at which the vote was held? I understand that two of the nationalists will be here in about an hour and a quarter.

Nigel Evans: We will now move on to new clause 19.

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Regulation of food labelling and content

‘In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (reserved matters: specific reservations), at the end of section C8 to add the words “but this exception does not permit the Scottish Parliament to legislate on food content or labelling of foodstuffs that are placed for sale within Scotland”.’.—(Tom Greatrex.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tom Greatrex: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I hesitate to introduce an element of gravity to the proceedings, given some of the entertainment that has featured so far. Over the past few hours, however, there has been much debate on issues that did not feature in the Calman report. This issue was dealt with in the report, but it does not feature in the Bill. It featured in the previous Government’s White Paper and is referred to in the Command Paper that accompanies the Bill, but it is one of the issues that appear to have fallen off the edge of the Calman process.
	During this Committee stage the Government have produced explanations, some convincing and others less so, for the fact that they are not implementing some of Calman’s recommendations. Part of the purpose of the new clause is to give them an opportunity to explain why they are not implementing one particular recommendation. I note that the Scottish Parliament legislative consent memorandum Committee, in one of its conclusions, suggested that the Government provide a fuller explanation. As I am sure that its members read the Command Paper before reaching that conclusion, I suspect that merely repeating the terms of the Command Paper will not serve to provide the explanation sought by the Committee.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to tell us what representations the Government have received from either the retail or the manufacturing sector in support of their action?

Tom Greatrex: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I hope to address the point that she has raised.
	Calman looked at this issue in a degree of detail. The issue was mentioned in the White Paper of November 2009, but it does not appear in the Bill. The new clause addresses Calman recommendation 5.11, which states:
	“The Scottish Parliament should not have the power to legislate on food content and labelling in so far as that legislation would cause a breach of the single market in the UK by placing a burden
	on the manufacturing, distribution and supply of foodstuffs to consumers, and Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act should be amended accordingly.”
	Calman looked at the exception of trade descriptions in relation to food from the general reservation of consumer protection issues in the Scotland Act 1998. At the same time, the devolved Administration in the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for public health. The evidence taken by Calman was largely oral, and it was instructive. The chief executive of the Food Standards Agency made it clear in oral evidence that the potential for policy divergence was a concern that should be eliminated by making a change akin to that proposed in this new clause and said that the information should be available throughout the UK. Evidence from representatives of both the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland and the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine echoed that point and said there was a potential issue, although I am sure that the Minister will want to remind us that both of them made it clear that in practice there has not been a problem yet. This recommendation was welcomed by the Scottish Retail Consortium, CBI Scotland and the Food and Drink Federation. It was referenced in the Command Paper from which I assume the Minister will draw his remarks on this new clause, and it is a recommendation that we seek to insert into the Bill.
	The Scottish Retail Consortium made a number of points about areas in which public health is not a factor, such as that a requirement to label or produce food differently in different parts of the UK places a heavy burden on retailers and manufacturers and could breach the ethos of the single market. A number of examples have been cited—for example, mandatory environmental labelling with different requirements in Scotland from other parts of the UK—that could place a financial and administrative burden on the food industry, and many of the companies affected would be small firms providing specialised products who do not wish their markets to be limited to just one part of the UK. The introduction of this measure would not stop the often successful voluntary schemes that already exist and to which the Command Paper makes reference.
	The Government suggest in the Command Paper that potential activity by the Scottish Parliament in food labelling must be agreed by the UK Government and the European Commission, and therefore the protection is in place and is robust enough. The Command Paper goes on to suggest that this Calman recommendation is superfluous. There is a clear argument that it is not superfluous, but that what we require in this matter is clarity. That is the content of the representations from food manufacturers, food retailers and business organisations in Scotland.
	This new clause enables the Calman commission recommendation, which mysteriously disappeared between the November 2009 White Paper and the Bill being published, to be enacted. It provides clarity, which is what the industry is looking for, and it provides an opportunity for the Government to deal with an issue that the Command Paper seems to wish to dismiss.

David Mundell: I welcome this opportunity to discuss a substantive issue in relation to the Calman commission report and the subsequent Scotland Bill. It compares
	favourably with some of the discussions and superfluous issues that have been raised by the SNP during the course of the evening.
	Hon. Members will know that the Calman commission made a recommendation on food content and labelling which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, is not included in the Bill. I shall set out the Government’s reasons for deciding not to include it, as was made clear in the Command Paper. Although the recommendation seems sensible on paper, it presents a wide range of difficulties in practice, and I shall set those out. As he has said, the Scottish Parliament’s report on the Scotland Bill also sought a fuller explanation for the Government’s position. The commission made the following recommendation:
	“The Scottish Parliament should not have the power to legislate on food content and labelling in so far as that legislation would cause a breach of the single market in the UK by placing a burden on the manufacturing, distribution and supply of foodstuffs to consumers, and Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act should be amended accordingly.”
	The commission also recommended that the Scottish Parliament’s and Scottish Government’s abilities to deal with public health issues should remain, so the recommendation does not cover this aspect, and the Government fully support that.
	Importantly, and rightly, Calman recognised that food content and labelling are almost exclusively regulated at European Union level, so any scope for national flexibility at member state level when implementing this European law is extremely narrow. Hon. Members will know that general and nutritional labelling is currently being recast in a proposed European regulation. The resulting legislation will be directly applicable across the whole of the United Kingdom. A number of other labelling and food standards matters are governed by European directives.
	Even where no specific food-related legislation has been adopted at European Union level, free movement principles mean that any food which can be lawfully sold in any member state must be able to be sold throughout the United Kingdom, and vice versa. Significantly, single market rules seeking to avoid barriers to trade being erected apply equally to rules applied in just one part of a member state. Any national measure would need to be notified at member state level, and clearance would need to be obtained from the European Commission before adoption. Before seeking such clearance, consideration would always need to be given to the potential for any disruptive impact within the United Kingdom.
	I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Scottish Parliament is already in a position where it cannot legislate to set particular Scottish standards for food content in cases where that would breach the single European market or supplement existing European regulations. The Scotland Act prohibits the Scottish Parliament from legislating in a way that is incompatible with Community law, and Scottish Ministers have no power to carry out any executive act which is incompatible with that law—to do so would be ultra vires and any such act would have no effect.
	It is relevant to the Calman commission’s recommendation that member states may restrict the free movement of goods in exceptional and limited cases. One example where that might be possible is if the Scottish Parliament were to need to take action for
	the purposes of public health. Again, however, Calman did not suggest any restrictions in this area. The Government are aware of only two instances where Scottish food legislation imposes different requirements from those that apply in England. First, the sale of raw milk or cream for direct human consumption is banned in Scotland but permitted, subject to certain restrictions, in England—European legislation specifically allows that. Secondly, the rules regarding food storage temperature control requirements are much more detailed in England than in Scotland. Both those differences predate Scotland’s ability to make its own legislation and both relate to food safety, not general food labelling or standards. That suggests to the Government that there is not a substantial problem to be addressed. There is therefore no need, in our view, to amend the Scotland Act.
	Amending schedule 5 to the Act poses a number of possibly insurmountable problems, at the root of which is the fact that the Calman commission’s recommendation seeks to address a particular effect of legislation—that is, the breach of a single market. The purpose test that applies to the reserved matters in schedule 5 to the Act requires both the purpose and the effect of a provision to be taken into account. It is therefore possible for a provision to have an effect on a reserved matter and yet not relate to it when the purpose test is applied. Simply including a matter in schedule 5 does not guarantee that it can never be affected by legislation that is in the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
	There is no precedent for enabling the Scottish Parliament to legislate on a matter provided that its legislation only has certain effects. Even if it were possible to create a new type of reserved matter, there would still be problems. Indeed, any such measure would depend on a definition of what is meant by the United Kingdom single market, which is a concept at the heart of Calman’s recommendation. Furthermore, any amendment of the Scotland Act would create a divergence between the different countries of the United Kingdom as the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and Wales are not subject to equivalent restrictions.
	To summarise, although Scottish Parliament legislation of the type that Calman’s recommendation is designed to prevent is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely. The likelihood of the Scottish Parliament’s legislating on food content and labelling in a field where exemptions can be found from single market legislation and where any applicable European regulations can be simultaneously disapplied is very limited. The likelihood of its doing so for purposes that are not related to legitimate actions in the field of public health is extremely low.
	Finally, any national measures on labelling or content where a member state may be able to act would need to be notified to the European Commission at member state level.

Ian Davidson: May I seek guidance from the Minister? If we have a vote on this matter, will all Unionist Members be voting at 10 o’clock and the nationalist Members be voting on the 13.14 principle at quarter past 11?

David Mundell: That is a very good point. One thing that always interests me about those who promote the time change is that they rarely seek to refer to it as central European time and the imposition of time from Europe on the rest of the—

Nigel Evans: Order. It was not a particularly brilliant joke the first time round. Can we now get back to new clause 19?

David Mundell: I apologise, Mr Evans, for getting sucked into matters that diverge from the subject under discussion.
	The Government appreciate the concern behind the Calman recommendation, and we have fully considered its implications. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), who has shown great stamina throughout today’s proceedings by taking part in many of the individual debates, asked whether we had consulted the retail and business sector. I am pleased to tell her that I have met the Scottish Retail Consortium and discussed this issue in detail. I have also met the director of the CBI in Scotland, who has also previously set out concerns on this matter. I hope that I have been able to persuade both organisations that the legal basis, which I have set out in detail, is a sound one and is the basis on which the Government did not include that particular recommendation in the Bill.
	On the need for legislative change, taking together all the points I have made, the Government do not necessarily consider—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order,  27 January ).
	The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:

Ayes 136, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill, as amended, reported (Standing Order No. 83D( 6 )).
	Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Nigel Evans: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 7 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the draft Road Vehicles (Powers to Stop) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Financial Assistance Scheme (Revaluation and Indexation Amendments) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
	That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.
	That the draft Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.

Local Government

That the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.—( Angela Watkinson .)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Charter of Fundamental Rights

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15319/10, Commission Communication on Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union; supports the Government in welcoming the Commission’s work to ensure that EU legislation is compatible with fundamental rights; and notes the Government’s support for the principle behind Protocol No. 30 on the Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and the United Kingdom, that the Charter does not give national or European courts any additional grounds on which to find that the laws of the United Kingdom are incompatible with the law of the European Union.—( Angela Watkinson .)
	Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Monday 21 March, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Members’ Salaries not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—( Sir George Young .)

DETENTION OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS (TEMPORARY EXTENSION) BILLS JOINT COMMITTEE

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 8 March, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills presented to both Houses on 11 February (Cm 8018).
	Ordered,
	That a Select Committee of eleven Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills (Cm 8018).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bills by 9 June 2011.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Tony Baldry, Sir Menzies Campbell, Paul Goggins, Mr Greg Knight, Alun Michael and Mr Robert Syms be members of the Committee.—(Mr David Heath .)

PETITION
	 — 
	Education Maintenance Allowance

Peter Soulsby: A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and me, launched a city-wide petition against the Government’s proposals to abolish the education maintenance allowance. Last week my right hon. Friend presented a petition presented by those who study at Gateway college in his constituency. Tonight I present a petition signed by those associated with Regent college and Wyggeston and Queen Elizabeth I college in my constituency.
	Signed by 327 people, the petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Leicester and the surrounding area,
	Declares that the Petitioners oppose the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance; notes that a substantial number of young people are in receipt of the Education Maintenance Allowance in Leicester; and further notes that education can provide a better future for young people.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000901]

OPERATION ORE (STAFFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do not adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Robert Flello: May I begin my thanking Mr Speaker for granting this debate? Those watching and listening will no doubt wonder why I want to raise something that happened such a long time ago. The simple answer is that my constituents have had to wait such a long time for an apology, and indeed are still awaiting an apology from Staffordshire police. I hope that following the debate the current chief constable, who is an honourable man, will move to ensure that that wrong is corrected without further delay.
	I want to say something about Operation Ore in general. All aspects of child pornography are horrific, and I pay tribute to all agencies that act to stamp out that appalling crime. The victims need so much more than just sympathy. However, Operation Ore was not handled well: thousands of people were falsely accused, leading to 100,000 children being wrongly removed from their homes, people’s reputations wrongly being destroyed and, tragically, a number of people committing suicide. It is with that in mind that I turn to the circumstances of a constituent who, quite understandably, wishes to remain anonymous. Staffordshire police are fully aware of the case and know to whom I refer.
	I wish to take the opportunity presented by the debate to raise the case of that constituent, who in December 2002 was arrested by Staffordshire police as part of Operation Ore, the British part of the global operation against internet child pornography. When I conclude my remarks, I will seek a number of reassurances from the Minister, whom I am grateful to see here this evening to respond to the debate.
	Almost four years before the circumstances of December 2002, in January 1999, my constituent reported that his Barclaycard had been stolen. He reported it to a police station in Stoke-on-Trent, which issued him with a crime number, and to Barclaycard, from which he received a refund of £179.76 for some unlawful transactions made in the period between the theft of the card and his reporting it at the police station.
	However, on 12 December 2002, eight officers arrived at my constituent’s home early in the morning amid a high police presence. Vans were parked for most of the day outside his home, which he shared with his parents, understandably arousing a great deal of interest in the neighbourhood. During the day a considerable amount of property, including computer equipment, was removed from the home. He was arrested on the grounds that the Barclaycard registered to him had been used in 1999 to access a website containing child pornography. I reiterate that it was in January 1999 that he had reported the theft to the police.
	My constituent suffers from ulserative colitis, for which he had been taking prescribed medicine, which he informed the police doctor about early in his detention. His medication was brought to the police station promptly but was withheld from him until he was released at 7 o’clock that evening. As a result of the stress of his arrest and the withholding of his medication, his medical
	condition worsened, necessitating a medical referral to a consultant in order to rebalance the medication. It is only in recent years that his health has improved following the stress of that incident.
	On 13 December 2002, the following day, my constituent was able to provide Staffordshire police with evidence that he had, indeed, reported the theft of his credit card in January 1999, and of the resulting refund from Barclaycard. As a result, no charges have ever been brought against him, and on 18 December 2002 all the property that had been seized on 12 December was returned. The police had checked the credit card database, but incredibly only back to 2002; the incident to which it related took place in 1999.
	After much deliberation, during which the family tried to rebuild their standing in the community and to move on from the awful experience, my constituent and his parents decided in February 2003 to make formal complaints to Staffordshire police for wrongful arrest. These were acknowledged in writing on 25 February 2003 by the then deputy chief constable, David Swift, who informed both parties that their complaints had been passed to the force’s professional standards unit, where it would be handled by a Mr Hulse. On 6 March 2003, DCC Swift wrote again to my constituent’s parents, asking them to contact an Inspector Humphries within 14 days, which they did.
	My constituent and his parents met the inspector in March 2003 and were told that, as my constituent had been the person arrested, any complaint should come from him. Therefore, the parents withdrew their complaint. My constituent was also persuaded not to pursue a formal complaint—he was told that this would be interpreted as a personal attack on the police officers—but to go down the route of an informal complaint.
	Later that month, my constituent’s parents engaged a firm of local solicitors, and during a meeting Mr Hulse informed my constituent that, owing to a change in the police computer system, only records dating back to 2002 had been checked prior to his arrest, so the 1999 report of the theft of his credit card had not shown up. My constituents were advised by their solicitor that it would thus be difficult to proceed further with any complaint, as negligence would need to be proved, and that that would be an expensive undertaking for which legal aid would not be available.
	In June 2003, my constituent’s parents wrote to the Metropolitan police, the lead force on Operation Ore, but their letter was merely forwarded to Staffordshire police, who informed them in July 2003 that the matter was now being dealt with by a detective inspector from the local CID.
	In September 2003, my constituents engaged new solicitors, and a formal complaint for wrongful arrest was made on 1 October 2003, which Staffordshire police once again referred to the PSU in a letter dated 10 October. On 17 October, my constituent received a further letter informing him that Inspector Humphries was again handling their complaint.
	There exists a withdrawal of complaint form, dated 24 October 2003, which apparently has been signed by my constituent. My constituent remains adamant to this day, however, that at no time did he agree to withdraw his complaint, sign any such document or have the inclination to withdraw his complaint. Staffordshire
	police appear to have no record of the original complaint, just the withdrawal of it, and in addition there are factual errors on the withdrawal form. In an effort to try to resolve that particular aspect of the case, I sought to view the original withdrawal form, and was told in no uncertain terms by the solicitors for Staffordshire police, “Who are you to be even considering reviewing such a document?” I am sure that the Minister will agree that so far the whole issue is of great concern.
	In February 2004, my constituents’ solicitors informed Staffordshire police of their intention to seek damages for wrongful arrest and imprisonment, and that was acknowledged by Staffordshire police on 24 February 2004 and by the force’s insurers on 5 March 2004. In June 2004, my constituent was asked to provide some proof of his inability to work, and he was able to provide some evidence.
	On 25 October 2004, however, Staffordshire police’s legal adviser, a Mr Griffiths, wrote to my constituents rejecting their claim, stating that in his opinion the arrest of my constituent had been lawful for the following reasons. First, my constituent did not inform the arresting officer of the 1999 theft of his credit card until part way through his first interview, not at the time of his arrest. Given the circumstances, it took some time for my constituent to be made aware of what he had been arrested for and all the implications of it. Secondly, the use of a credit card raised a prima facie case of suspicion, and the report of the theft of the card was not in itself proof of theft. Thirdly, officers had reasonable cause to suspect that my constituent was, according to Mr Griffiths’s letter,
	“merely trying to pass the blame onto others.”
	Those claims were rebutted by my constituents’ solicitors on 1 November 2004, who noted in particular that the use of a credit card online leaves a unique IP address, which would allow investigating agencies to ascertain the exact computer that had been used to access the illegal websites and whether my constituent had access to it. Indeed, that point has never been addressed by Staffordshire police. Mr Griffiths acknowledged that letter on 6 December 2004, and went on to concede that my constituent had made the arresting officers aware of the theft of his credit card at the time of the arrest, but that, apparently, that would make no difference.
	Unfortunately, in January 2005, my constituents’ solicitors advised that they could see no reasonable chance of progressing the complaint further, and closed their file. In August 2005, my constituent made another formal complaint, this time on the ground of failure to provide prescribed medication. On 29 September 2005, Mr Griffiths wrote to my constituent, advising him that if he wanted to pursue the complaints, he should do so through legal representatives. In October 2005, my constituent complained further, to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which informed my constituent by letter on 18 October that the IPCC had arranged for my constituent to be contacted by Staffordshire police to discuss the issue. According to my constituent, however, no such contact was ever made.
	The years were now rolling on, and in December 2005, my constituent received a letter from the then Deputy Chief Constable Lee of Staffordshire police upholding the initial rejection of my constituent’s complaint, at which time my constituent asked the IPCC to undertake an investigation into why no pre-2002 records search
	had taken place, as such a search would have shown that the credit card had been reported stolen in January 1999. Unfortunately, the IPCC wrote back to say that, as the original complaint predated the IPCC’s formation and fell under the auspices of the Police Complaints Authority, it was unable, under law, to accept the complaint.
	In August 2006, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in his then role as Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, advised me that the Home Office could not become involved in the specifics of the case as it was an operational matter for Staffordshire police, and that he had forwarded my representations to Staffordshire police. He also suggested that any complaints about the IPCC be initially taken up with the IPCC caseworker. My constituent made a further complaint to the IPCC about its refusal to take up the complaint, but that was subsequently rejected. During 2007, again following further representations from me, Staffordshire police refused to reconsider my constituent’s early complaints. I was also, somewhat disturbingly, advised by the IPCC that it had no record of my constituent’s case file.
	Having spent some time setting out the background to the case and the reasons behind the continuing anger and unhappiness of my constituent and his parents at the system of making a complaint against the police, I would like to ask the Minister to give me some reassurance on five specific points. First, will he use his good offices to persuade Staffordshire police to apologise, at long last, to my constituent and his parents, if for no other reason than for withholding the prescribed medication, for which I can see no justification?
	Secondly, will the Minister assure me that, in future, all records—not just those from 2002 onwards—will be checked prior to any arrest, so that no other innocent person and their family suffer the trauma and indignity experienced by my constituent and his parents? Thirdly, will the Minister clarify whether he believes it correct that any complaint made before the creation of the IPCC cannot be pursued by it, and will he tell me what, if any, recourse is open to any other complainants in a similar situation?
	Fourthly, is the Minister happy that, when a complaint is made either against an officer or, as in this instance, against a police force in general, it is handled in a way that is liable to produce an outcome that leaves the complainant feeling less than reassured? Fifthly, will he send the message today to all police forces that, when a mistake is found to have been made, a swift apology must be forthcoming? This is a dreadful case of sloppy practice leading to an injustice, yet, even now, all my constituent really wants is an apology.
	Child pornography is an appalling crime, and those who are guilty rightly face public shame as well as the full force of the law. However, those who have committed no crime and who are wrongly accused also face public anger and horror. The police should therefore behave with the greatest level of professionalism. In this case, that professionalism was sadly lacking. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to my five points, and that, despite what the force’s solicitors have said, Staffordshire police will make a full apology to my constituent and seek to right this wrong.

James Brokenshire: Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate and on bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I certainly understand his desire to highlight the specific case of his constituent, and he has clearly followed up with great care the various issues that have been raised with him. I hope he will recognise that it is difficult for me to respond specifically on an individual case of this nature. I also hope, however, that he will appreciate that this provides me with an opportunity to comment on Operation Ore and on a number of steps that the Government are taking to tackle the issue of illegal images online and the wider work of child protection generally. I note the five points that he has highlighted, and I will seek to address some of them in the course of my comments.
	It might be helpful if I give the House a brief overview of Operation Ore. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, this was, at the time, an investigation into the activities of individuals on a scale that we had not seen before. In September 1999, the United States Postal Inspection Service searched the premises of an American-based online trading company known as Landslide Inc, which was providing access for payment to adult pornography and child abuse images. Material was seized that included a database containing the list of subscribers.
	In September 2001, Landslide Inc transaction information was received by the National Crime Squad, a precursor agency of CEOP—the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. The information was originally received within the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but following an initial assessment it was passed to the National Crime Squad. The NCS took responsibility for national co-ordination in dealing with the dissemination of the subscriber data. This included a co-ordinated approach to the categorisation and prioritisation of individual suspects based on their potential access to children. The transaction data consisted of information submitted by a customer in purchasing access to the websites, which included their name, address, credit card number, e-mail address and a customer-selected password. In April 2004, following the first incitement case, further forensic work revealed the capture of the subscriber IP address and the credit card verification logs.
	In the majority of Operation Ore cases, police forces have used the data from Landslide Inc to commence investigations into the suspected possession of indecent images of a child. There is a common misconception about these cases being linked under an overall programme of investigation. I want to make it clear that the decision whether to proceed in each individual case was a matter for the police force concerned, and that once the individual packages were released to the forces, it was the responsibility of individual chief constables to decide whether to undertake investigations. Following investigation, forces considered whether offences had been committed and warranted judicial proceedings. Each case was independently scrutinised by the local Crown Prosecution Service, and in those cases where suspects elected for trial, the evidence was obviously further tested by the courts. To the best of our knowledge, no cases were brought on the basis of credit card data alone.
	We understand that about 2,700 individuals have been convicted of these offences. This figure includes more than 700 admitting their guilt in receiving a formal caution. In almost 2,300 cases, child abuse images were discovered. In 22% of all dissemination cases following an investigation, the police service took no further action. Importantly, more than 154 children were safeguarded.
	As I have already indicated, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss individual cases in this debate, but I want to be clear that it is my understanding that the investigation process followed by the police in these cases was the same as for any other type of crime, and that following a thorough investigation, decisions were made on whether to proceed with a prosecution, or other action, taking all relevant factors into account.
	I appreciate the points made by the hon. Gentleman and recognise the sensitivities for people who are arrested or accused of such crimes. An additional factor that the police have to consider in such cases is whether there is a direct and continuing threat to children from those who have been accused of a crime. It is a matter for the investigating officers, in conjunction with local children’s services, what action they take having considered that question. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted his desire and his constituent’s desire to receive an apology from Staffordshire police. That is a matter for Staffordshire police. The hon. Gentleman has put on the record the chronology of the events, the issues he has and his constituent’s concerns. I am sure that those points will be heard by Staffordshire police as a consequence of this debate.
	The police and CEOP have standard guidelines for dealing with these investigations, which include recommendations for handling interviews and arrests. Although it is right that we consider the effect of the accusation on the person who is accused, that needs to be balanced with the risk posed to children. A member of the public who is dissatisfied with the behaviour of individual officers or a force may complain to the relevant police force or to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The IPCC has a dual purpose to act as an overall guardian to the police complaints system, ensuring its effectiveness and efficiency, and also to take a role in individual cases. It is entirely independent of the police and the Government. The hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about the IPCC’s ability to take on individual cases that predate its creation. I hope that it is satisfactory to him if I respond later with further details on that issue.
	The broader issue of illegal images is sadly one that persists. I would like to take this opportunity to set out the approach that we will take to that problem. I believe
	that we all have a responsibility to help to make the internet a safer place for the public. I support the self-regulatory model developed in the UK by the internet industry and law enforcement to provide a structure for the reporting of such images, the analysis of them, and action to track down those responsible or prevent access to them.
	I recognise the support for the Internet Watch Foundation and the action taken by responsible internet service providers to prevent inadvertent access by the public to such images. That is an example of how industry and others can make a significant contribution to tackling this problem. I valued the opportunity this afternoon to attend the launch of the IWF’s three-year strategy and the publication of its annual report on its work to take down such images, working closely with law enforcement and other agencies. The Government strongly support this model for tackling illegal images. We believe that it works and we would like to see other countries take action to achieve the same ends.
	The work of the IWF and the industry, allied with that of the police and CEOP, has helped virtually to eradicate the content in question from servers hosted in the UK, although there is clearly still work to be done. We will continue to support the work of CEOP, which does so much to help to protect children. It has been a great success, and it has helped to safeguard a significant number of children and apprehend people who would seek to harm them.
	I wish to reassure the House of two things. The first is the seriousness with which the Government take the protection of children. In that context, we will continue to support the work of the police and CEOP to protect children from the threats posed to them. Like the hon. Gentleman, I thank them and congratulate them on their work to ensure that children are safer. Secondly, we will ensure that should an operation on the scale of Operation Ore be required again, the UK has in place a robust structure to deal with it. We will ensure that cases are handled in accordance with the law.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue in general, and equally for raising the case of his individual constituent. He has made his points very clearly, and he has certainly followed the case through for his constituent. I am sure that hon. Members who are in the House this evening, and people outside, will have heard the points he has raised tonight and will take notice of them.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	House adjourned.